U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–425 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–162 

SCHNEIDER, KORNZE, KASTNER, AND 

WILLIAMS NOMINATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF MS. JANICE M. SCHNEIDER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT), DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; MR. NEIL G. KORNZE, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR; DR. MARC A. KASTNER, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF 

SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; DR. ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DECEMBER 17, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator From Nevada .................................................... 4 

Kastner, Marc A., Nominee To Be Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................... 14 

Kornze, Neil, Nominee To Be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 11 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 2 

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada ...................................................... 3 

Schneider, Janice M., Nominee To Be Assistant Secretary of the Interior 

(Land and Minerals Management), Department of the Interior ...................... 7 

Williams, Ellen D., Nominee To Be Director of the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency-Energy, Department of Energy ............................................... 16 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 43 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 71 

(1) 

SCHNEIDER, KORNZE, KASTNER, AND 

WILLIAMS NOMINATIONS 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:42 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden, chairman, presiding. 

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

FROM OREGON 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee now moves to consider 4 very 

well-qualified nominees. 

Janice Schneider has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management. 

Ms. Schneider is currently a partner with the law firm of 

Latham and Watkins where she chairs the firm’s Environment, 

Land and Water Resources Committee. She co-chairs the Energy 

and Infrastructure Project Siting practice. She was a counselor to 

the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, David Hayes, from 2000 to 

2001 and was a trial attorney in the Environment and Natural Resources division of the Justice Department from 1998 through 

1999. 

Neil Kornze has been nominated to be the Director of the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

He’s been the Senior Advisor in the Bureau of Land Management 

since January 2011, its Acting Deputy Director for Policy and Programs since October 2011 and its Principle Deputy since March 1st 

of this year. 

Before joining the Department of the Interior, Mr. Kornze held 

a succession of increasingly senior positions in the Office of Majority Leader Reid from 2003 to 2011. We’re pleased that the Majority 

Leader is joining us here this morning. 

Marc Kastner has been nominated to be the Director of the Office 

of Science at the Department of Energy. 

The Doctor is a physicist who has been on the faculty for the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the past 40 years. He became a full professor in 1989, the head of the Physics Department 

in 1998, and has been the Dean of the School of Science since 2007. 

Dr. Ellen Williams has been nominated to be the Director of the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency -Energy, at the Department of 

Energy. 
2 

She is currently on leave from the University of Maryland where 

she’s been a Professor of Physics since 1991. Since 2010 she has 

been the Chief Scientist for BP. 

My view is is that all 4 of the nominees are highly qualified for 

the positions they’ve been nominated for. I look forward to hearing 

more about their thoughts on key issues. 

Let me recognize Senator Murkowski for her statement at this 

point. Then I want to call on the Majority Leader and Senator Heller to introduce Mr. Kornze. Then we have some formalities to take 

care of with respect to the nominees. 

But let me recognize Senator Murkowski. 

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

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we here in this Energy Committee have been spending 

a lot of time, probably an extraordinary amount of time, on nominations lately. I think what we’re seeing this morning moving forward 3 nominees after a thorough and good vetting process. This 

is important. 

The opportunity to take up an additional 4 this morning from the 

Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, is good. It’s 

important. 

A lot of discussion on the Floor of late about nominations, but I 

think our committee, most certainly has taken the issue of those 

nominees in front of us, given them, a fair consideration and really 

worked it through the process, as I believe is so important. So I 

thank you for that. 

I’d like to welcome each of our distinguished nominees to the 

committee. Thank you for your willingness to serve. 

Dr. Kastner, Dr. Williams, we didn’t get an opportunity to visit 

personally. But your credentials are certainly impressive. As I 

noted at last week’s confirmation hearing, I think that Dr. Moniz 

is assembling a pretty top notch team to assist him with the important work being done by the Energy Department. So I’m pleased 

with what I’m seeing coming forward out of DOE. 

Mr. Kornze, I enjoyed our meeting last week. I’m very encouraged by your willingness to go up, be on the ground, see what the 

issues are in my State. As I’ve mentioned it’s probably going to consume a lot more of your time than you might want. But you’ll have 

fun. 

I can guarantee you that. They’ll be some good trips there. But 

it’s a lot of hard work. So I appreciate your willingness to learn and 

give the kind of commitment that I’m looking for in a Federal land 

manager for this country. 

Ms. Schneider, I appreciate the opportunity that you and I had 

to visit. As I mentioned, I don’t know you as well as Mr. 

Beaudreau, who is currently acting in the position for which you 

are now nominated. I think that Mr. Beaudreau was doing a good 

job there. But he’s now slated to move over to Policy, Management 

and Budget. 

But because the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals 

Management has such a significant role in Alaska and in, really, 

in energy resource development nationwide, I want to make sure 
3 

that I really do know the direction that you will take in this position and understand better your qualities, your qualifications and 

priorities for the position. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony and 

the responses to our questions from the nominees this morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Let me now call on Senator Reid and Senator Heller to introduce 

Mr. Kornze. 

We’re glad to have the Majority Leader here. He has a long 

record of involvement in Western resource issues and Mr. Leader, 

proceed as you wish. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM NEVADA 

Senator REID. Chairman Wyden, thank you very much. 

Ranking Member Murkowski and wow, this is great to have so 

many members here. This is nice. 

Mr. Chairman, it was good for me to sit and listen to the quality 

of these 4 people. It’s really astounding that we have, with all the 

things going on in our country today, we have these good people 

who are willing to take these jobs. I think that’s remarkably important for us. 

The Bureau of Land Management, to most people, doesn’t mean 

a thing because it is an agency that is focused on, mostly, the West. 

The State of Nevada, 87 percent of the land in the State of Nevada 

is owned by the Federal Government, more than any other State 

and the vast majority of that 87 percent is Bureau of Land Management land. Having been involved in government for a number 

of years, the Bureau of Land Management is looked upon as a remarkably sound agency compared to what it was 20 years ago. 

Twenty years ago the Bureau of Land Management had a lower 

approval rating than the Internal Revenue Service. But they’ve 

done a good job of becoming more modern. 

Now Neil Kornze is somebody that is just perfect for the job, 

raised in rural Nevada, Elko County. 

Nevada has 17 counties. But in the northeastern part of the 

State is a large county that is really a remarkably beautiful place. 

It now has more mining in it than any place in America. The State 

of Nevada produced about 6 million ounces of gold last year and 

much of it came from Elko County. 

But in addition to that we have beautiful ranches. Some of them 

are quite famous. Bing Crosby had a big ranch there and a lot of 

movie actors. But these ranches, even though they were owned by 

some of these celebrities, were always working ranches. 

Elko County has beautiful wilderness area. The first wilderness 

we had in the State of Nevada was a long time ago in a place called 

Jarbridge which is a wonderfully beautiful, pristine area. 

The State of Nevada is a very mountainous State, more mountainous than any State in the Union expect for Alaska. We have 

more than 300 mountain ranges in Nevada. 

We have a wide range of animals. Elko County has it all. We 

have mountain goat and mountain sheep there and all kinds of 

things. But the only place that I know of in the Western part of 

the United States, other than South Dakota, there could be other 
4 

places, but we in Nevada are very proud that in Elko County we 

have mountain goats in addition to all the other animals we have. 

So it’s a beautiful State and a beautiful county. 

Neil was born and raised in Elko County. He really does understand the role of rural America. 

He has a master’s degree in International Relations from London 

School of Economics. He has, as indicated here, spent a lot of time 

in my office. The staff cared a great deal about him and you can 

always tell what kind of a staffer you have by how other members 

of the staff feel about him or her. 

So he understands to develop policy in the Western part of the 

United States you have to have consensus. There’s a lot of competing interest there. He understands that. 

Frankly, he and I have learned a lot of that together. You just 

can’t charge forward and do what you know is right because you 

may be wrong. He understands that. 

He’s been with the Bureau for some time now. His expertise is 

going to be invaluable to the Bureau of Land Management. 

Senator Heller has represented, as a Member of Congress, rural 

Nevada, the northern part of the State which is the Congressional 

District that he was a Member of Congress. I can speak for Dean, 

but he’ll speak for himself, this is, again, an unusually qualified 

person for the Bureau of Land Management. He has his Nevada 

roots but he understands the West remarkably well. 

As Senator Murkowski has said, he is a person who will be on 

the ground trying to figure out the best thing to do. 

So, I have every bit of confidence in Neil Kornze that he will be 

the best Director we’ve ever had at the Bureau of Land Management. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Majority Leader. You and I have 

talked about Elko in the past. Now I can tell my children about the 

goats. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Because now somehow I had missed that part of 

the account. 

But thank you very much. I very much share your view, Mr. 

Leader, with respect to Neil Kornze. As you know he was invaluable to us to the various challenges dealing with Secure Rural 

Schools. We’ll be talking about that. 

Mr. Leader, I know you’ve got your hands full today. We welcome 

you to stay for as long as you wish. 

Senator REID. I’m going to stay and listen to my colleague, Dean. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Very good. 

Senator Heller. 

Thank you for your cooperation on this as well. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM NEVADA 

Senator HELLER. Chairman Wyden, thank you and Ranking 

Member Murkowski. 

It’s also a pleasure to join Senator Reid in introducing Neil 

Kornze. 
5 

It would be my preference if I had been at the witness table. Unfortunately the mobility of my foot, it wouldn’t be fair to this committee to have you endure me moving back and forth in crutches. 

So please abide with me as I make my statements from up here. 

But again, I appreciate the comments that Senator Reid has 

made and his comments about Neil. 

Neil is a Nevadan. Neil was born and raised in Elko, as the 

Leader said. I also echo that Elko is one of Nevada’s most vibrant 

rural communities which I believe gives Neil a firsthand perspective of the challenges that Nevada and other Western States face 

regarding our vast public lands because, as mentioned, BLM controls roughly 67 percent of Nevada’s land. Our ability to access and 

use these public lands is vital to our State and has an enormous 

impact on Nevada’s economy. 

As a Nevadan Neil understands that good public land management, economic development are not mutually exclusive and has 

taken this sensibility throughout his career. 

Senator Reid and I have worked closely to find solutions to issues 

facing Nevada, particularly when it comes to the appropriate use 

of Nevada’s public lands and natural resources. My staff and I have 

enjoyed a good relationship with Neil during his tenure in Senator 

Reid’s office. We collaborated to do what is best for the people of 

Nevada on a variety of public lands issues including renewable energy development, mining, water, outdoor recreation, rural development and wildlife. 

Our working relationship has continued during his tenure at 

BLM. Neil understands the importance of working together, has 

displayed maturity and wisdom beyond his years which he will 

need as he officially takes the helm of the Bureau of Land Management. 

While I’ve not always agreed with him on policy, he has proven 

to be a good partner on public land management issues. His pragmatic nature, his background, provides him with a fresh perspective as the head of the BLM which allows him to think outside the 

box to find ways to maximize resources, produce good outcomes. 

These attributes will be especially important as we wade into many 

difficult issues such as wildfires, resource development and conservation and especially management decisions impacting sage 

grouse and their habitat. 

As it relates to sage grouse it bears to mention that an ESA listing for the bird would have a devastating impact on Nevada’s fragile economy statewide. Given this it’s imperative that Nevada has 

the cooperation of the BLM Director as well as other relevant Federal agencies. Neil has committed to me that he’ll continue to work 

together on this issue. I’m depending on that commitment as I 

know my fellow Nevadans are. 

The stakes are too high. We have a lot of work to do. So I’m confident that if confirmed by the Senate, Neil will continue to successfully manage the BLM, bring a much needed fresh perspective 

to an agency facing many challenges that directly impact Nevada 

and many of my colleagues on this committee. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all those that 

are with us today. I want to thank Senator Reid also for his testimony. 
6 

By the Neil, it’s good to have your wife here with you also. 

So, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Heller, thank you. 

Senator Reid, thank you as well for attending. 

The rules of the committee apply to all nominees require that 

they be sworn in connection with their testimony. Could each of 

you rise and raise your right hand? 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you’re about to give to the 

Senate committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall be the 

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

[Witnesses respond, I do.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Before you begin your statements there are 3 

questions that each of you will have to address. 

The first question is, and we need a response from each of you, 

will you be available to appear before this committee and other 

congressional committees to represent Departmental positions and 

respond to issues of concern to the Congress? 

[Witnesses respond, I will.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware of any personal holdings, investments or interests that could constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance of such a conflict should you be confirmed and 

assume the office to which you’ve been nominated by the President? 

[Witnesses respond, no.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you involved or do you have assets held in 

a blind trust? 

[Witnesses respond, no.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright. 

We’d like to ask each of you to introduce your family members. 

Dr. Williams, go ahead. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I’m very pleased to have here today my mother, 

Lois Williams and my husband, Neil Gehrels, also quite a few people I believe from my family are watching these proceedings online. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Dr. Kastner. 

Mr. KASTNER. With me today is my wife of 46 years, Marcia 

Kastner, who had a job as supervising all the standardized mathematics tests for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts school children. 

Also with me are my two daughters, one from California and one 

from New York, and my two sisters and their partners, one from 

Maryland and one from North Carolina. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

You, Ms. Schneider. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Senator. 

With me is my mother, my sister, Lisa, my partner, Cynthia 

Johnson of 23 years. I’d also like to acknowledge my Latham family 

which is way in the back, a large contingent. You spend a lot of 

hours at a law firm and they’re like family. 

The CHAIRMAN. We saw the room was full. You brought them 

out. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Yes. 
7 

I’d also like to acknowledge my extended family watching on the 

web in Colorado and Texas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Kornze. 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I’m so pleased to introduce my wife, Mara Gassmann, who is 

with me today. We also online have family watching from Nevada, 

Colorado, Idaho, Utah and Georgia. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

In order of seniority I think we probably should start with you, 

Ms. Schneider. You’ve been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Interior for Land and Minerals Management. 

We’ll recognize you for your statement. If you could keep it to 

around 5 minutes, we’ll make your prepared statement a part of 

the record in its entirety. 

STATEMENT OF JANICE M. SCHNEIDER, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT), DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Senator 

Murkowski and members of the committee, it’s an honor to be considered for the position of Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the U.S. Department of the Interior. I don’t 

typically sound like this. I came down with a bug over the weekend, so I ask for your indulgence as I work through this brief summary. 

First, I’d like to thank Secretary Jewell and President Obama for 

giving the opportunity, with your consent, to serve the American 

people in this position. 

I second would like to thank David J. Hayes. David has been an 

enormous influence on me. I always try to conduct myself with the 

same levels of integrity, candor and hard work as he does. 

Distinguished members of the committee allow me to summarize 

my background for you briefly and its relevance to this position. 

Although I spent my childhood in New York City, my career has 

had a constant focus on natural resource use, development and conservation issues across the country. In over 30 years I’ve worked 

successfully with States, tribes, industry, conservation groups and 

other stakeholders on a broad range of projects. Balance, attention 

to stakeholder needs, strong science, open and transparent communication, the ability to listen and a willingness to collaborate are 

the elements to being successful and to minimizing litigation. 

My undergraduate education as a double science major and work 

for 6 years as a marine biologist in South Florida formed the foundation for a strongly analytical and science based approach to my 

work. Working on coastal issues I was increasingly faced with laws 

and regulations I wanted to understand better. So I loaded everything I had into my hatchback, moved out to Oregon for law school. 

There, working in law school. 

Excuse me? 

The CHAIRMAN. Good decision. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Go Ducks! Ha Ha. 
8 

Working in law school for the Oregon Department of Justice on 

natural resource issues I was hooked. I also learned important lessons on State’s rights and that State’s perspectives may differ from 

Federal and tribal perspectives. 

As a young attorney I practically grew up in the hallways of Interior. 

Graduating from law school I was honored to be selected during 

President George H.W. Bush’s Administration for the Interior Solicitor’s Office Honors Program. In my 8 and a half years in Federal service, which included a detail to the Deputy Secretary’s office and as a litigator with the Justice Department, I worked on 

with all of the department’s agencies and many of the agencies outside of the Department. I understand their diverse missions and 

their broad ranging responsibilities. 

After about 8 and a half years of Federal service I went into private practice. I’m now an equity partner at Latham and Watkins. 

For the last 12 years I’ve focused on energy issues. I’ve worked 

closely with those who generate and transmit energy, those who 

provide important resources for this Nation’s growth and security 

and those who finance these projects. 

I strongly believe that energy independence is vital to this Nation’s security. I understand that if confirmed the agencies I would 

oversee play a critical role, not only in getting us there, but in also 

creating jobs and providing economic security across the country. 

Nonetheless resource development must and can be conducted in 

a balanced, environmentally sound and sustainable way. All Federal decisions need to be science based and take diverse views into 

consideration. 

I strongly support the President’s all of the above energy strategy 

and the need for a renewable and conventional resources both onshore and offshore. I’ve personally worked on coal projects, upstream and midstream oil and gas projects, wind, solar, geothermal 

projects, LNG development, hard rock and leasable mineral development, refinery issues and extensive transmission and pipeline 

work on public and private lands. 

These projects are not easy. They are high stake, billion dollar 

projects. They’re multifaceted. They raise complex issues and have 

significant stakeholder components. 

I understand the business need for efficiency and predictability 

for both project developers and financial institutions. I also understand that these needs must be balanced with environmental protection and with community engagement. 

These are not mutually exclusive goals. I am proudest when we 

are able to work issues out with a broad range of stakeholders and 

avoid litigation. 

I’ve also worked on many conservation projects as detailed in my 

written statement. I have over 20 years of experience with American Indian issues. So I understand the Federal Government’s responsibility to honor tribal views, protect trust and treaty resources. If confirmed I will bring this balanced and experienced approach to this office. 

Finally, I appreciate that public lands are also critically important recreation areas. I love being outdoors. I’ve detailed some of 

my exploits in my written statement. 
9 

Many have asked why I would consider leaving a strong and successful law practice. The answer is simple. I believe in public service. I believe that I can contribute to these issues in a balanced and 

transparent way. 

If confirmed I look forward to working with each of you on this 

committee with Congress and stakeholders. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee. I’m happy to take any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schneider follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANICE M. SCHNEIDER, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SEC- RETARY OF THE INTERIOR (LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT), DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Senator Murkowski, and members of the committee. It is an honor to be considered for the position of Assistant Secretary for 

Land and Minerals Management at the U.S. Department of the Interior, and an 

honor to appear before you today. 

First, I want to thank Secretary Jewell and President Obama for giving me the 

opportunity, with your consent, to serve the American people in this position. 

Second, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends in the audience, including my mother; my partner Cynthia Johnson; my sister; and my dad and the 

rest of my extended family watching from Colorado and Texas for all of their love 

and support. I would not be here today without you. 

Third, I want to thank David J. Hayes. David has been an enormous influence. 

I always try to conduct myself with the same levels of integrity, candor and hard 

work as he does. I would also like to thank my many other friends, including my 

colleagues and partners at Latham & Watkins LLP and my clients, for the opportunities we have shared together. 

Distinguished Members of the Committee, allow me to summarize my background 

for you and its relevance to this position: 

Although I spent my childhood in New York City, my career has had a consistent 

focus on natural resource use, development, and conservation issues across the 

country. 

In over 30 years, I have worked successfully with states, tribes, industry, conservation groups and other stakeholders on a wide variety of projects. Balance, attention to stakeholder needs, strong science, open and transparent communication, 

the ability to listen, and a willingness to collaborate, are the elements to being successful and minimizing litigation. 

I have always been drawn to the sciences and the natural environment. My undergraduate education as a double science major, and work for six years as a marine 

biologist in south Florida, formed the foundation for a strongly analytical and 

science based approach to my work. 

I began my professional career as a research biologist in south Florida investigating population and abundance of commercially and recreationally important 

fish species—such as stone crab, swordfish, sardines in the Gulf of Mexico, and 

shrimp—to support sustainable use strategies. At the University of Miami’s experimental fish hatchery, I worked to develop techniques to support viable fish stocking 

of snook, a popular game fish, which was then in decline. I also worked on oceanographic cruises in the Straits of Florida, mapping the location of ocean density layers, and for the National Park Service down at Everglades National Park. 

As a professional, I transitioned to managing teams assessing the environmental 

impacts of proposed projects—such as new or widened roads, highways and causeways—at the Florida Department of Transportation, and worked extensively on 

coastal development issues as a private environmental consultant. Working on these 

projects (such as large marinas and other coastal development) raised a host of environmental review and mitigation issues, including wetlands, endangered species, 

and cultural resources. 

I was increasingly faced with laws and regulations that I wanted to understand 

better. It piqued my interest in the law. So, after over six years of working as a 

biologist, I loaded everything I had into my hatchback and moved to Portland, Oregon for law school, to expand my horizons and my experience. The rest of my career has been spent focusing on western resource issues. 

During law school, I worked for two years for the Oregon Department of Justice 

on a very broad range of natural resource issues. These included: mining in eastern 

Oregon; tribal treaty, recreational, and commercial fishing rights, licensing and reg-
10 

ulation; western water law; public access, hunting and law enforcement; timber, and 

sensitive species issues; other Endangered Species Act and National Environmental 

Policy Act issues; and evaluating new oil spill legislation. Working for Oregon, I 

learned the importance of state perspectives on issues, and that they may differ 

from federal and tribal perspectives. 

As a young attorney, I practically grew up in the hallways of Interior. Upon graduation, I was selected by Tom Sansonetti, during President George H. W. Bush’s Administration for the Interior Solicitor’s Honors Program. In my six and a half years 

there—including a detail to the Deputy Secretary’s Office—I worked with all of the 

Department’s agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, the Office of 

Surface Mining, the former Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park 

Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. 

As a litigator with the Justice Department—where I specialized in Endangered 

Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act litigation—I worked closely with other agencies outside 

Interior, such as NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest 

Service. I understand each agency’s diverse missions and broad ranging responsibilities. 

After eight and a half years in public service, I went into private practice. I am 

now an equity partner with Latham & Watkins LLP; the Local Chair of the Environmental Department here in Washington, DC; and a co-chair of the Energy and 

Infrastructure, Siting and Defense practice. 

For the last 12 years, I have focused on energy issues, and worked closely with 

industry, including those who generate and transmit energy, those who provide important resources for this Nation’s growth and security, and those who finance these 

projects. 

I strongly believe that energy independence is vital to this Nation’s security and 

a priority for the Administration. I understand that, if confirmed, the agencies I 

would oversee play a critical role not only in getting us there, but also creating jobs 

and providing economic security across the country, while adapting and responding 

to climate change. Nonetheless, resource development must—and can—be conducted 

in a balanced, environmentally sound, and sustainable way. All Federal decisions 

must be science-based and must take diverse views into consideration. 

I strongly support the President’s ‘‘All of the Above’’ energy strategy, and the need 

to increase our renewable and conventional resources, both onshore and offshore. 

Among other things, I personally have worked on coal projects across the country; 

oil and gas projects, including in the Bakken; wind, solar and geothermal projects 

in West Virginia, Hawai’i, Washington, California and Nevada, respectively; LNG 

development in Louisiana; hardrock and leaseable mineral development in Oregon, 

Idaho and Minnesota, respectively; refinery issues in Alaska; and extensive high 

voltage transmission and pipeline work on public and private lands. 

For example, I recently led the legal strategy for development and successful defense of a $2 billion transmission line, one of the first specifically built to deliver 

renewable energy, and also successfully handled the environmental review for a new 

mineral rights development. These projects are not easy; they are multi-faceted and 

raise complex issues. One project I am working on right now involves seven different federal agencies, along with needed state and tribal approvals. These projects 

also have significant stakeholder components. I understand the business need for 

efficiency and predictability for both project developers and financial institutions. I 

also understand those needs must be balanced with environmental protection and 

community engagement. These are not mutually exclusive goals. I am proudest 

when we are able to work issues out with a range of stakeholders and avoid litigation. 

I have also worked on many conservation and mitigation efforts during my career. 

This includes: helping to create two national parks (the Great Sand Dunes National 

Park in Colorado, and Paterson National Historical Park in New Jersey); helping 

to restore river flows in the Trinity, the Flathead and the Missouri; working to improve the Everglades and California Bay Delta ecosystems; land acquisition for conservation; and, I have first-hand experience implementing a broad range of protective and mitigation measures to address impacts from development projects. I also 

have over twenty years of experience with American Indian issues and understand 

the federal government’s responsibility to honor tribal views, and protect trust and 

treaty resources. 

If confirmed, I will bring this experience and a balanced approach to the office. 

Finally, I appreciate that the public lands are also critically important recreational areas. I love being outside. I will never forget my first backpacking trip 

on Mount Hood in Oregon and the raw beauty of the Pacific Northwest, hiking 
11 

Aravaipa Canyon on BLM lands in Arizona, rafting the Arkansas River in Colorado, 

duck hunting on a magical morning in the Everglades, or the pleasure of surf-fishing on a lot of beaches on the east coast. While I like to ski in the winter, and to 

sea kayak when it is not quite so cold, I also understand and respect that people 

like to recreate in different ways, which should—and can—be accommodated. 

Many have asked me why I would consider leaving an interesting and successful 

law practice. The answer is simple. I believe in public service, and I believe that 

I can contribute to the dialogue on energy policy and conservation in a balanced, 

transparent and positive way. If confirmed, I look forward to working with each of 

you on this Committee, Congress and stakeholders, in that regard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, distinguished Members of the Committee. I am happy to take any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Schneider, thank you. 

Why don’t we go to you next, Mr. Kornze? 

STATEMENT OF NEIL KORNZE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF 

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member 

Murkowski and members of the committee. It’s an honor to be here 

today as the President’s nominee for the Director of the Bureau of 

Land Management. 

I’d also like to thank Senator Heller and Senator Reid for their 

kind comments. 

My family’s connection to the land goes back generations. My 

great grandparents homesteaded on the Great Plains. My grandparents grew and packed apples in the Pacific Northwest. My father explored for gold in States like Nevada and all around the 

West. Through this, the bounty of the land has always been central 

to my understanding of our Nation and our potential. 

As an individual I’m a hunter, an angler, a hiker, a recreational 

shooter and a white water enthusiast when I can find the time. I’m 

also a consumer of fossil fuels and renewable energy. 

Growing up in Northeastern Nevada I came to know the importance of natural resources through hometown industries like gold 

mining and cattle ranching. In fact my first job out of high school 

was working at one of the Nation’s largest hard rock mines. 

Life in Elko also introduced me to the recreational opportunities 

that public lands afford. Many weekends were spend hunting the 

local hills or exploring remote areas by 4 wheeler or on foot. 

Through these pursuits and practices and through my work both 

in the U.S. Senate and at the BLM I’ve come to understand our 

Nation’s natural heritage from a wide range of perspectives. 

During my time working here in the U.S. Senate I had the great 

privilege of working with many of you to craft critical national legislation like the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 and to work on 

a long term reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act and 

the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. 

As Majority Leader Reid’s advisor on public lands I worked with 

members on both sides of the aisle and with this committee to promote responsible development and smart conservation in places 

where they make sense. 

Over the last 3 years I worked at the BLM in a number of leadership positions including my current role as Principle Deputy Director. Through this position which I have held for the past year, 

I’ve been the functioning head of the agency. In this role I have 
12 

strived both to bring a continuity of leadership to the organization 

as well as a willingness to approach issues with fresh eyes. 

While at the BLM I’ve worked with my colleagues to find new 

ways to connect and collaborate with the public, our stakeholders 

and even with our own internal team to further our core mission 

of multiple use and sustained yield. We’ve made some strides in 

this area. But much more needs to be done to provide clear, more 

user friendly information for the public to understand the resources 

that are on the public lands and our short and long term plans for 

management. 

The issue of communication is a particular challenge for the 

agency because unlike some of our sister agencies the resources we 

manage are scattered across all 50 States and there is rarely a 

clear demarcation of where public lands start and stop. 

We’re proud, however, of the way that this pattern places us as 

an integral partner of communities, both rural and urban. But it 

also gives us an added responsibility to be very clear about where 

we are and what we do. 

Right now at the Bureau we are in the process of using technology to break down barriers. In the oil and gas realm we’ve made 

improvements, important improvements, in the last few years in 

our processing and drilling permits. We will continue that progress 

with the use of an online APD system that will be tested and rolled 

out in the year ahead. 

Similarly we have a unique responsibility in the State of Alaska 

to native corporations and to the State itself. That responsibility is 

conveying millions of acres of land. By looking at this particular 

challenge over the last months in the last year, we have found 

ways to use technology to literally take decades off of our current 

schedule for those land conveyances, to do it at a fraction of the 

cost and to do it while delivering an even better product than what 

we have today. 

So we’re very proud of some of these innovations. 

Through these efforts and through greater use of science and our 

decisionmaking processes and by moving to a more nimble landscape level planning approach, we will have incredible opportunities in the years ahead. 

As you know the challenges we face are also substantial. Fire, 

drought and the decline of species like sage grouse are all situations we must adapt to and we must help address. 

We also have to do more to understand the most durable ways 

to mitigate the development impacts on public lands and to restore 

the public lands so that we can truly live up to our agency’s mandate of public use and sustained yield. 

If confirmed I will work with my partners and my hard working 

BLM colleagues to tackle these issues directly. It’s a great honor 

to be here with you today. I look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kornze follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NEIL KORNZE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the 

Committee. I am deeply honored to be here today as President Obama and Secretary Jewell’s nominee to be the next Director of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to introduce my wife, Mara 
13 

Gassmann, who is here with me. I am grateful for her support and that of our extended family who are watching today from Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Georgia. 

My family’s connection to the land goes back generations. From my great grandparents who homesteaded on the Great Plains, to my grandparents who grew, 

picked and packed apples in the Pacific Northwest, to my father who spent his career exploring Nevada and other states for gold and copper deposits, the bounty of 

the land has always been central to my understanding of our nation’s greatness and 

its potential. As an individual, I am a hunter, an angler, a hiker, a recreational 

shooter, and a mountain bike rider. I am also a consumer of fossil fuels and renewable energy. Through these pursuits and practices and through my work both here 

in the U.S. Senate and at the Bureau of Land Management, I have come to appreciate our nation’s natural heritage from a wide range of perspectives. 

During my time working here in the U.S. Senate, I had the privilege of helping 

to craft critical national legislation like the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 and 

a long-term reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Payment-In-Lieu-ofTaxes programs. As Majority Leader Harry Reid’s advisor on public land and natural resource issues, I worked closely with Members from both parties and this committee to move forward statutory improvements that recognized both the need for 

responsible development of our natural resources and smart conservation in places 

where it makes sense. 

Over the last three years I have worked at the Bureau of Land Management in 

a number of leadership positions, including my current role of Principal Deputy Director. Through this position—which I have held for the past year—I have been the 

functioning head of the Bureau of Land Management. In this role, I have strived 

to bring both a continuity of leadership and vision to the organization as well as 

a willingness to innovate and to approach our many responsibilities with fresh eyes. 

Many of the accomplishments of the first-term, including oil and gas leasing reforms and the Western Solar Plan, are still a work in progress. Limited budgets coupled with the long-term nature of the work we do means that successful implementation of programs often takes years. This reality makes long-term stability in the 

organization’s leadership and philosophy a critical component of achieving our 

shared goals. 

While at the Bureau of Land Management, I have worked with my colleagues to 

find new ways of connecting with the public, our partners, and our own internal 

team. We have made some strides in this area, but much more needs to be done 

to provide clearer, more user-friendly information about the resources that exist on 

the public lands and the both long and short-term plans for management. 

The issue of communication is a particular challenge for the Bureau because, unlike some of our sister agencies, the resources that we manage are scattered across 

all 50 states, and there is rarely a clear demarcation of where the public lands stop 

and start. We are proud of the way that this land pattern places us as a key partner 

to so many communities, both rural and urban, but it also gives us an added responsibility to harness available tools to better inform the public about where we are 

and what we do. 

Right now at the Bureau we are in the process of using technology to break down 

barriers. In the oil and gas realm, we have made strong improvements in our reviews of drilling permits in recent years, but we can and will do better through the 

use of an online permitting system that will be tested and rolled out over the next 

several months. 

Similarly, we have a unique responsibility for surveying and conveying millions 

of acres of land to native corporations and to the State of Alaska. This work has 

historically been done through a relatively slow and expensive process. By looking 

at this particular challenge with a new perspective, we have found ways to fulfill 

our commitment to the State of Alaska literally decades ahead of the current schedule, at a fraction of the cost, and with a greatly improved product. 

In the face of declining budgetary resources and increasing demands on our nation’s public lands and minerals, I am committed to exploring new approaches with 

the public, our stakeholders, and Congress so that the Bureau of Land Management 

can become a more effective and more responsive organization. Through these efforts and through greater use of science in our decision-making processes and by 

moving to a more nimble, landscape-level planning approach, we have incredible opportunities in the years ahead. 

As you know, the challenges we face are also substantial. Fire, drought, and the 

decline of critical species like sage grouse are all situations that we must adapt to 

and help address. We must also do more to understand the most durable ways to 

mitigate development impacts and to restore the public lands so that we can truly 

live up to the agency’s dual mission of multiple use and sustained yield. 
14 

If confirmed, I will work with my dedicated colleagues, Congress and the public 

to tackle these issues directly and to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management 

continues to play a vital role in the American economy and in sustaining public 

lands for this and all future generations to use and to enjoy. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you and 

your distinguished colleagues. I consider it a great privilege to be here with you 

today. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kornze. 

We’re glad to have you back. As you and I have talked about 

Western resources issues are not for the faint-hearted. You have 

been through a lot of those challenges and we’re glad to have you 

here. 

Mr. Kastner. 

STATEMENT OF MARC A. KASTNER, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. KASTNER. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski 

and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today as you consider my nomination to be Director of the Office of Science. 

I’m honored and indeed, humbled by being nominated by President Obama and supported by Secretary Moniz to lead the organization that is the largest supporter of physical sciences research in 

the United States. If confirmed I look forward to working with this 

committee to address the challenges of maintaining the Nation’s 

leadership in fundamental science which is so important to our security and economic health. 

I was born in Canada and moved to Cleveland, Ohio with my 

parents at the age of 7 and then went to the University of Chicago 

for both undergraduate and graduate education. I majored in chemistry as an undergraduate and then switched to physics as a graduate student. After a short post-doctoral research experience I 

moved to MIT and I’ve been there for over 40 years on the faculty 

of the Physics Department. 

I feel today as though I’ve come full circle because my first research experience took place at Argonne National Laboratory, one 

of the great national laboratories run by the Office of Science for 

the benefit of the country. 

I’ve been doing research for nearly 50 years. I’ve been privileged 

to have some exciting discoveries, primarily because I’ve had brilliant colleagues at MIT and brilliant students and brilliant postdoctoral researchers to work with. I won’t bore you with any of the 

details of my research. 

Twenty years ago I began taking on administrative responsibilities which, I think, are relevant to the position of the Director of 

the Office of Science. 

The first was as Director of an NSF funded materials research 

center where I coordinated the research of 50 faculty members in 

science departments and engineering departments. 

After that I became Head of the Department of Physics where I 

was responsible for faculty that did research in high energy physics, nuclear physics, plasma physics as well as solid state physics 

and astrophysics, many of the primary responsibilities of the Office 

of Science to support these areas. 
15 

In 2007 I became Dean of the School of Science and my portfolio 

broadened further to include the life sciences, the earth sciences 

and chemistry as well as mathematics. 

So over the years I’ve had supervisory responsibility for people 

working in almost all of the areas that are supported by the Office 

of Science. 

I chaired two different committees of the National Research 

Council of the National Academies that explored issues asked for 

by the Office of Science. I therefore got some insight into policy and 

other challenges and opportunities faced by the Department. 

Over the years I’ve had the privilege of having my own research 

funded by the Federal Government, by the National Science Foundation, by the Department of Defense and of course, by the Department of Energy. At this stage in my life I really look forward to 

helping younger people keep the United States at the forefront of 

research. 

Let me close by reiterating that our quality of life, the health of 

our economy, the strength of our national defense and the security 

of our energy future all stem from discoveries in basic science. I 

look forward, if confirmed, to working with members of this committee to ensure that basic science continues to thrive at DOE and 

that its discoveries are turned sufficiently into technologies that 

serve the American people. 

I thank you again for considering my nomination and will be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kastner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARC A. KASTNER, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE

OFFICE OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, 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 (DOE). I am honored and humbled to be nominated by President Obama and 

supported by Secretary Moniz to lead this enterprise, which is the largest supporter 

of physical sciences in the United States. If confirmed, I look forward to working 

with this Committee to address the challenges of maintaining the Nation’s leadership in fundamental science, which is so critical to our security and economic health. 

I am pleased that some members of my family are here today: My spouse of more 

than 46 years, Marcia Kastner, has a Ph. D. in applied mathematics. Although most 

of her career was in the private sector, her last job was supervising all of the standardized mathematics tests for the children of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Our two daughters are here, who are both business women; one has worked at 

startups in California, the other is starting a company of her own in Brooklyn, New 

York. Finally my two sisters are here with their partners, one from Maryland and 

one from North Carolina. 

I was born in Canada, but moved with my family at the age of 7 to Cleveland, 

Ohio. In college, at the University of Chicago, I studied Chemistry as an undergraduate and then switched to Physics in graduate school. In a sense, I have come 

full circle, because my first scientific publication, of which there are now about 270, 

was based on research done as an undergraduate, at Argonne National Laboratory 

in Illinois, one of the great National Labs supported by the Office of Science. 

In nearly 50 years of research, I have worked on fundamental questions related 

to how electrons move inside solids, a field that has provided the science underpinning the electronics and computer industries. Since joining the faculty of MIT just 

over 40 years ago, I have led extremely talented graduate students and postdoctoral 

scientists in experiments that have contributed to the understanding of novel semiconductors and superconductors. Our early research was on amorphous semiconductors, some of which are now used for solar energy conversion and others as the active memory material in DVDs. When high-temperature superconductivity was discovered in 1986, I began a 15-year collaboration with Robert Birgeneau, who recently stepped down as Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, and 
16 

the late great Brookhaven National Laboratory scientist Gen Shirane. We used the 

High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven to study the magnetic properties of the fascinating materials, whose ability to transmit electricity without loss has the potential for increasing the efficiency of the electricity grid. The research at the reactor 

gave me a deep appreciation of the value of the large facilities than can only be built 

and maintained by the Office of Science. The work for which I am perhaps best 

known, was the discovery of a transistor that turns on and off again every time one 

electron is added to it; this should be compared with the transistors in your cell 

phone, which take several hundred electrons and can turn on only once before they 

are turned off. This single-electron transistor, may someday help to make computers 

with greater computing power and lower energy consumption. 

Twenty years ago, I began to take on administrative responsibilities at MIT, 

which gave me an appreciation of ever expanding areas of science. As Director of 

the Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, funded by NSF, I organized the research of about 50 faculty members from the Schools of Science and Engineering working on interdisciplinary projects. When I became Head of the Department of Physics, I was responsible for a faculty carrying out research in high energy, nuclear, atomic, condensed matter and astrophysics. Finally, for the past six 

years, I have been Dean of the School of Science, which has given me oversight of 

the life sciences, chemistry, earth sciences and mathematics, including some computer science. Thus, I have had administrative responsibility for research in almost 

all the fields supported by the Office of Science. 

MIT has an outstanding record of turning scientific discoveries into technology 

and bringing the latter to the market place by starting new companies. I am enthusiastic about working with the Undersecretary for Science and the Director of 

ARPA-E and others at the Department, to explore new ways of increasing the speed 

with which technology transfer happens at DOE. 

In the past decade, I was privileged to serve as the chair of two committees of 

the National Research Council, which oversaw numerous studies requested by the 

Office of Science. I also served on several committees of the Basic Energy Sciences 

Advisory Committee. These have given me a view of some of the policy challenges 

and opportunities that I will face if I am confirmed. 

I have been privileged to have had my own research supported by government 

agencies, including the NSF and Department of Defense, as well as DOE, for nearly 

half a century. I look forward, if confirmed, to helping younger scientists make 

progress at the frontiers of knowledge. 

Let me close by reiterating that our quality of life, the health of our economy, the 

strength of our national defense and the security of our energy future all stem from 

discoveries in basic science. I look forward to working with members of this Committee to ensure that basic science continues to thrive at DOE and that its discoveries are turned efficiently into technologies that serve the American people. 

I thank you again for considering my nomination, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, thank you, a very helpful statement. I’m 

particularly pleased that you want to focus on young people and 

making sure that they understand the possibilities for science. 

I’ve begun something at home called listening to Oregon’s future 

where I get out to the high schools and just listen to the students 

about their hopes and aspirations. Science comes up again and 

again and again. 

So we’ll want to ask you about that. 

Mr. KASTNER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Ellen Williams, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the committee. I truly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you as President Obama’s 

nominee for the Director of ARPA–E. 
17 

I also would like to express my thanks to President Obama and 

to Secretary Moniz for trusting me and giving me this opportunity. 

If confirmed I would do everything in my power to validate that 

trust. 

As you know, ARPA–E’s mission is to accelerate the creation of 

transformative technologies at the very earliest stages of development. I’d like to give you a little bit of information about my background in the context of ARPA–E’s mission. 

As you know I grew up in Michigan. I attended Michigan State 

University for my bachelor’s degree studying chemistry. Then I 

went on to California Institute of Technology, also in chemistry. 

But there I was introduced to the power of interdisciplinary research, the special opportunities to advance technology that occur 

at the boundaries between disciplines. So in my subsequent research career I’ve worked at the boundaries of chemistry, chemical 

engineering, physics and materials science. 

I became a professor at the University of Maryland, was there 

for nearly 30 years. I did teaching and research, ran a large research laboratory and a research center. 

In parallel with my academic career I had the opportunity to 

work in government service as a member of a consulting group that 

worked upon request for agencies of the U.S. Government providing technical assessments of various applications of technology. 

In that role I’ve worked on studies for many agencies including 

DARPA, the Department of Defense, NNSA and the Department of 

Energy. 

Over the decades of my research and consulting career I’ve had 

multiple opportunities to observe firsthand the transformation of 

early stage research, fundamental studies of what might seem to 

be very obscure and esoteric types, very difficult to carry forward, 

that have moved forward, step by step, over a ten or twenty year 

time scale to become commercialized products which are truly 

changing the way that we run our lives. As a result I have a lot 

of optimism about the long term power of transformative technology. 

Four years ago I had the opportunity to become involved directly 

in the commercial energy world when I was given the opportunity 

to become BP’s Chief Scientist. At BP I’ve had a number of responsibilities, but among those that I found the most satisfying have 

been those that involved innovation and emerging technologies. I 

worked internally with BP’s creative and innovative technologists 

to provide them with the tools and opportunities for them to look 

at emerging technologies and bring them into the company and discover new ways of delivering value. 

I’ve also worked externally appraising what’s available in emerging technologies worldwide and trying to understand their strategic 

impacts for the energy industry overall. 

In both of these roles one of my key criteria and drivers has been 

really using strong, rigor in technical assessments and being able 

to develop a sound understanding of what’s both technically and 

economically feasible and with that rigor of assessment also developing a rigor of communication because as a technologist I have a 

responsibility to bring to the decisionmakers the information that 

they need to make good policy decisions moving forward. 
18 

So in summary what I would bring to the role as the Director 

of ARPA–E, if confirmed, are my many years of experience in basic 

research and understanding the applications of research through to 

technology and commercial development, my optimism and my enthusiasm for the power of transformative technology and my strong 

commitment to rigor and technical assessment and communication. 

As you all know the United States faces a lot of challenges and 

a lot of opportunities in developing and delivering the secure, clean 

and affordable energy that we need to maintain our quality of lives. 

I believe that ARPA–E’s programs are essential to these challenges 

and I’m very honored to have the opportunity to work with ARPA– 

E in continuing to deliver value. If I’m confirmed I would look forward to working with every member of this committee to deliver 

that value. 

So I thank you for your attention. I’ll be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY (ARPA–E), DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY

Chairman Wyden, Ranking member Murkowski, members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee 

for Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E) at the 

United States Department of Energy (DOE). It is an honor to be here. 

I would like to thank President Obama for nominating me for this position. If confirmed, I would do my utmost to justify the confidence he has placed in me. I also 

would like to express my gratitude to Secretary Moniz for his support. If confirmed, 

it will be a privilege to join his team. 

I also would like to thank my family, my parents Lois and Richard Williams, my 

husband, Neil Gehrels and his parents Tom and Aleida Gehrels, my brothers and 

sisters, my children Thomas and Emily, and my friends and colleagues. Their guidance, love and support are the foundation for all my efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, ARPA-E is a young agency that is applying to energy 

technology the approaches to innovation and value development that have been 

demonstrated with long term success by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for military technology. If confirmed, I will bring to the role my lifetime 

of experience in scientific research and in supporting the application of cutting-edge 

technology to meet pressing social needs. 

I grew up in Michigan, in the Detroit suburbs, and experienced first-hand the 

benefits to local communities of a thriving manufacturing base. I went to college at 

Michigan State University, where I studied chemistry. The excellent program there 

made it possible for me to go on to advanced studies at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California. There I was introduced to a broad perspective of 

interdisciplinary research, and as a result my subsequent career in science has 

spanned the disciplines of chemistry, chemical engineering and materials science. 

After my doctoral and post-doctoral work, I became a professor at the University 

of Maryland in College Park. As a professor, teaching and running a research laboratory and later a research center, I saw over a decade’s time amazing transformations in which difficult and esoteric experiments led to new technologies that 

shifted the baseline of the possible. This has left me with optimism about the potential of science and innovation. If confirmed I would bring this vision—optimism, and 

my enthusiasm to the work of ARPA-E. 

In parallel with my academic career, I had the opportunity to be involved in government service as a member of a technology group that provides advice upon request to the U.S. government. In this role I participated in technical assessments 

for DARPA and the Department of Defense, and for other government agencies including the National Nuclear Security Administration and DOE. The DOE studies 

included stockpile stewardship, site remediation, and science activities. If confirmed, 

I would bring this external perspective to further developing the complementary relationship between ARPA-E and other DOE programs. 

In the midst of this satisfying and productive academic and service career, four 

years ago I had the opportunity to become directly involved in energy technology 
19 

as BP’s Chief Scientist. In this role I have been involved in both internally-facing 

and externally-facing activities. One of my greatest sources of pride in the inwardfacing role has been giving our technology teams the space and resource to apply 

their talent and creativity to generate new technical value through innovation. In 

my externally-facing role, I’ve been responsible for assessing technology that may 

have strategic implications for the world energy industries. In doing so I’ve applied 

a stringent criterion of testing the technical basis for all assertions—this is essential 

to provide decision makers with the information they need to make sound choices 

for the future. If confirmed, I will bring the same rigor in supporting the members 

of this Committee with the information you need about ARPA-E and innovation in 

energy technology. 

Mr. Chairman, we as a nation face great challenges and great opportunities in 

proving the secure, clean and affordable energy essential to our quality of life both 

now and for generations to come. ARPA-E is playing an important role in establishing new, transformational opportunities for the future. If confirmed, I would look 

forward to working with the members of this Committee to help ARPA-E deliver the 

greatest value and impact. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to come before this Committee. I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, thank you. We will. 

Let me begin, if I might, for Ms. Schneider and Mr. Kornze, on 

the whole issue with respect to financial stewardship and financial 

stewardship on our public lands. I think it’s quite clear that our 

public lands can and should be used for many valuable purposes; 

recreation, mining, oil and gas development, routes for oil and gas 

pipelines, electric transmission lines, and forestry would be a few 

of them. 

There remains an obligation to the American taxpayer to make 

sure that our taxpayers are getting a fair return for commercial 

use of their public lands. A major share of onshore royalties also 

go to State and Indian tribes so shortcomings in royalty collections 

also short our States and our tribes. Shortly, a General Accounting 

Office report will be released that raises questions about how well 

the Department has been doing to ensure that taxpayers are getting a fair return for oil and gas development on both offshore and 

onshore public lands. 

Now I think it would be fair to say it’s not clear that the Interior 

Department, and especially the Bureau of Land Management, has 

always kept up with the times. 

In addition, according to recent work done by the General Accounting Office in the Department’s Office of the Inspector General, 

policies could also be improved with regard to the Federal coal program. For example, earlier this year the Inspector General reported 

that only one of BLM’s offices takes the value of coal exports into 

account when setting the fair market value for coal leases. 

So let me begin with a question for you, Ms. Schneider, a question for you, Mr. Kornze. If you two are confirmed, will you commit 

this morning to working with the committee to update Interior’s 

approach to managing public lands to ensure that taxpayers receive a fair return for the use of their lands? 

Ms. Schneider, let’s start with you. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

Yes, I agree that the U.S. taxpayer should be getting a fair return for the use of public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf 

and that those benefits can also flow to the States and tribes as 

appropriately. 
20 

I look forward, if confirmed, to reviewing this new GAO report 

and working with the members of the committee on this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Kornze. 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Securing a fair return is part of our mandate at the Bureau of 

Land Management, making sure that we’re looking out for the public. So we’re making some progress on the coal issue, in particular. 

We do have some recommendations from GAO and IG that we are 

implementing. 

So I think we’re making progress on some fronts. If confirmed, 

you can be certain that we will continue to take fair return for the 

taxpayer very seriously. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Let me move now to a major Oregon issue. That is, and Mr. 

Kornze you’re familiar with it, the Oregon and California legislation that is so important to Oregon’s rural counties. 

I have spent a great deal of time trying to find a way. This is 

a hugely important issue to Oregonians—to double the timber harvest because these communities have been hit so hard economically—on average double those timber harvests, each year for the 

next 20 years. I believe that we found a way to do it. In effect, you 

all have validated that estimate that’s been done by our scientists 

and at the same time protect our treasures. 

Now my question to you is—and your folks have been very helpful, both in Oregon and here in Washington, DC—if confirmed, will 

you continue to work with me to develop ways to implement the 

part of the issue that’s so critical, the National Environmental Policy Act, early in the process on a large landscape scale basis, to ensure that NEPA fulfills its twin goals of considering the environmental impact of a proposed action and informing the public without contributing to unnecessary delay? 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, we are moving to a landscape level approach in much of the work that we do at the BLM. So we look 

forward to working with you on your forestry effort in Oregon. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I think it’s very clear that NEPA is 

right at the heart of the debate. What we’re going to have to do 

is find a way to make sure that all of the stakeholders, all of them, 

up front in Oregon, get a chance to participate in that discussion. 

That’s what we do for both the moist forests and the dry forests. 

But then we have a certain predictability and certainty for the 

days ahead. We want to work closely with you on it. Of course, 

you’ve already indicated to me that you want to come up with a 

long-term solution for county funding as well. I will just note that 

for the record. 

I’m going to have some additional questions for you on the second round, particularly with respect to helium and methane leakage. But my time is expired. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m going to ask a couple questions about critical minerals and 

hard rock mining directed to both you, Ms. Schneider and Mr. 

Kornze. 
21 

On the critical minerals the Chairman and I, along with 16 of 

our colleagues, have recently reintroduced my Critical Minerals 

Policy Act directing the Secretary of the Interior to establish a list 

of minerals that are critical to the American economy. Very, very— 

30 thousand foot. 

If you can both inform me whether or not you think there is 

value to updating our mineral policies. If so, if you will agree to 

assist us with this, what I think is a very important measure, to 

move this legislation forward in the next year. 

Mr. Kornze, you want to start? 

Mr. KORNZE. Yes, thank you. 

I’ve not looked at the details of that legislation. But I do think 

that identifying our critical minerals in this Nation is important. 

Certainly many other nations have been aggressive about securing 

mineral stocks for themselves. I think that’s something that we 

need to pay close attention to. 

I look forward to working with you on that in addition to bringing in cooperators like USGS and other agencies. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I thank you for that. I think all we need 

to do is look to yesterday’s news when China imposes a quota on 

critical minerals recognizing that everything that Dr. Williams and 

Dr. Kastner are going to need to do their job is dependent on a supply of critical minerals. 

Ms. Schneider. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Senator, thank you. 

I agree completely. I’ve done a lot of mineral development work 

in my career. I think it’s important for the United States to be producing critical minerals that are important for defense purposes 

and other purposes as part of our overall national security. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

One of the issues that I think both of you are going to confront 

as they relate to accessing hard rock minerals is the EPA’s decision 

to involve itself in the financial assurance requirement for hard 

rock mining operations. I think this is over reach by the EPA. You 

have the BLM. You’ve got the Forest Service and really every relevant State that already have programs in place. 

Based on the correspondence that I have had with DOI and the 

Forest Service these programs all seem to be working at the Federal level. So I’m just—I’m not certain why EPA needs to inject 

itself, add additional requirements there. 

So the question, and again, this is to both of you, is whether or 

not you think that there are any deficiencies that we have within 

existing programs that would require EPA’s involvement? Just basically, flat out, do you think that EPA needs to be involved in this 

process? 

Certainly you, Mr. Kornze, will you defend BLM’s statutory role, 

particularly in the interagency process? 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

The BLM has, I believe, an impressive record in modern hard 

rock mining since our 3809 regs have been put in place. We had 

a very successful run in making sure that operations are in environmental compliance and our net benefit to the communities that 

they serve and to our general Nation. 
22 

So related to EPA we’ve had many discussions with them in recent years about projects all up and down the Western United 

States. We have had—we’ve shared thoughts at times about the appropriateness of various roles. We’re continuing to work on that relationship with EPA. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’d ask you to look very, very critically at 

it. It sounds like you’ve had some conversations. But I think it 

needs to be visited very seriously. 

Ms. Schneider. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Senator, thank you. 

I can also add that EPA has, based on my experience, also injected itself into the leasable minerals area as well on the bonding 

issue. I think it’s a dialog that we need to have with EPA, if confirmed. Based on my review of BLM regulations I think the regulations are strong and adequate to support necessary reclamation for 

mineral development. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Dr. Williams, just very briefly, I appreciated your background 

and clearly your level of interest, what you will be able to provide 

at ARPA–E. I’m reminded of a gentleman that the Chairman met 

with on his visit to Alaska last year, a guy who doesn’t know the 

meaning of the word no, particularly when it comes to advancing 

new ideas in energy. He says we don’t need more engineers, we 

need imagineers. I view this as the role of ARPA–E in so many different ways. 

I note that you have recently co-authored a publication titled, 

Water in Energy Industry. It’s something that I have a particular 

interest in, this energy/water nexus. I would hope that in this area 

you could bring a fresh perspective. You could be that imagineer. 

As we think of those issues that hold us back in our energy development or that cause complications as we process our energy. So 

much of it is tied to water. So at ARPA–E you have the opportunity 

to truly be that imagineer that can change the direction that we 

can take and particularly as it relates to the water/energy nexus. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Senator. I’m very excited 

about the opportunities at ARPA–E of taking the imaginative early 

stage ideas and moving them forward to a point where they can be 

commercialized. 

I also agree with you that the issue of water along with energy 

is a very cogent and important one. It’s well matched to ARPA–E’s 

mission of energy efficiency. 

So if confirmed these would be areas that I’d be very excited in 

working on. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. A number of colleagues have been very patient. 

Next in order of appearance is Senator Manchin to be followed by 

Senator Scott. 

Well it will not be the first time we’ve made that mistake. So let 

us recognize Senator—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let us recognize—oh I mistook my numbers. I 

thought it was a 7 rather than a one. I apologize to my colleagues. 

It is Senator Heinrich followed by Senator Scott. 
23 

Senator HEINRICH. For the record I just wanted to say I’m all for 

imagineers, but as the only engineer in the Senate, we could use 

a few more engineers. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Mr. Kornze, welcome, first of all. 

As somebody who is a do it yourself public lands hunter and I 

know you embrace that activity as well, I’m really interested right 

now on in the issue of making sure that our public lands remain 

accessible to the public. That doesn’t mean you get to drive off road 

or across country, but a lot of us, a lot of hunters and anglers, have 

seen some of the best recreational spots closed off by locked gates 

and privatized roads in the last 25 years. 

You know, one example that still sticks in my mind is that back 

in 2009 Congress created the Sabinoso wilderness, one of the few 

BLM wilderness areas in the State of New Mexico. But they’re still 

literally no legal way for the public to get there. 

In the Southern part of the State Cedar Mountain’s Cowboy 

Spring Wilderness Study Area, parts of the Sierra de la Sulvus 

would be incredible places to visit if there were any way to get 

there without breaking the law. 

If you’re confirmed as Director of the BLM would you commit to 

working with the committee to ensure that our public lands are accessible to the public? 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, I appreciate the question. 

I saw a report just in the last few weeks that suggested that as 

many as 6 million acres of BLM public lands might be inaccessible 

to the public. So this is an issue that is important to us. If confirmed you absolutely have my commitment to work with you and 

other Members of Congress to see what we can do to make sure 

we are securing appropriate access to places that are important to 

Americans. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great. 

I do want to say we’ve seen some great leadership out of the New 

Mexico BLM office in the last several years. We’ve seen some 

places opened up that have been off limits for many, many years. 

So I want to commend our State Director, Jessie Juen and his staff 

there for that work because it’s an example that I’d like to see 

taken West wide. 

I hear from sportsmen, not only in my home State, but if you follow the periodicals from all over the Intermountain west who face 

similar issues. 

As you know our public lands play an incredibly indispensible 

role in energy production including transitioning our Nation to a 

cleaner energy economy. My home State of New Mexico certainly 

has a lot to offer in that regard. We’re 12th in wind potential in 

the Nation. We’re second in solar potential. We already produce an 

enormous number of traditional energy sources as well including 

the natural gas that we were talking about earlier in the hearing. 

But I think we need to make sure that we’re smart about developing these energy sources, conserving our natural and cultural, 

our historical resources while encouraging energy development in 

the many places where it’s appropriate. We need to ensure that a 
24 

portion of the revenues, in my view, that the Federal Government 

receives from these new sources like wind and solar are used for 

conservation efforts that help to compensate for the impact of those 

projects. 

I’m a co-sponsor of Senator Tester’s bill, Public Lands Renewable 

Energy Development Act, as are a number of the folks on this committee. I just wanted to ask as Director would you commit to working with the committee and with the Congress to develop a renewable energy development framework that balances that development of these important resources with the conservation efforts 

that are needed in the West? 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator Heinrich, I appreciate that question and 

balance, when it comes to energy development, is at the core of 

what we do and that our mission. So we very much appreciate the 

challenge. 

As and I think solar development is a great example of where 

we’ve been moving to areas where development has not been the 

status quo. So there have been very important, critical questions 

about where the conservation piece of those actions is. I think we 

can certainly do more on that front. I look forward to working with 

you on a framework and moving those efforts forward. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great. 

I think last I’ll just say, you know, one of the places that we 

could see a substantial amount of solar development would be in 

Southern New Mexico. In addition there are—last week Senator 

Udall and I introduced legislation to designate the Oregon Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument in Southern New Mexico. 

Should you have the opportunity to spend some time in New Mexico we would love to get you out to see some of those resources first 

hand. 

Mr. KORNZE. Thank you. I welcome the opportunity. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank my colleague. 

Senator Scott, you’ve been very patient. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My congratulations to the panel on your nominations. 

Ms. Schneider, I’d love to chat with you for a few minutes. I’ll 

have about 6 or 7 questions for you and only 5 minutes to get it 

through. I can filibuster by myself. So if we can work together just 

to get through this that would be fantastic. 

My focus will be on the Atlantic. From my perspective the offshore opportunity with the Atlantic is incredible. In South Carolina 

alone by the year 2035 we could see as many as 35,000 new jobs, 

$2.7 billion added to our State’s economy and perhaps nearly $4 

billion added to our State’s revenues. That would be fantastic. 

One of the things that we have to see happen for us to get there 

is, of course, the PEIS, that allows for us to see if in fact the Atlantic will be permitted for seismic activity. 

The Obama Administration has banned, it seems to me, energy 

production in over 85 percent of America’s offshore. My first question to you is would you continue to support the moratorium or 

open new areas of offshore for energy production? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Senator, thank you for the question. 
25 

I’m very familiar with the, getting more familiar, with the programmatic EIS that you referenced. 

Senator SCOTT. Yes. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. For geological and geophysical work on the Atlantic. I think that’s an effort that we need to complete expeditiously so that we can move forward with environmentally responsible, scientific information gathering to further support our decisionmaking for the next 5-year plan. 

Senator SCOTT. OK. 

How involved do you plan to be with the drafting of the next 5- 

year offshore leasing plan? Were you ever involved in drafting a 5- 

year plan in your previous capacity at Interior? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. I have not been involved in drafting any of the 

prior 5-year plans in my prior capacity. 

I suspect that I will be heavily involved, if confirmed. 

Senator SCOTT. That’s good. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. In the next plan. 

Senator SCOTT. It seems like by your previous answer that you 

are relatively supportive of working an offshore production in the 

Atlantic after we get the seismic information. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Yes, I think we need to see what the information 

brings to bear. Then, you know, work with the States to identify 

those areas that may be, make the most amount of sense. 

Senator SCOTT. That was my attempt at a leading question that 

you didn’t really follow very well. So I’m not an attorney. You are. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCOTT. I’ll have to work on that next time. 

In your opinion—— 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. You have to say, isn’t that true? 

Senator SCOTT. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I’m a rookie so I’ll keep getting 

better at this, I assure you. 

In your opinion will the National Ocean Policy hinder the development of offshore energy and what role do you see it playing in 

the development of the next Department of the Interior? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. You know, I need to get more up to speed on the 

new ocean policy. I think that we’re going to need to bring the 

ocean policy and the positions that it’s proposing along with and 

kind of merge the need for looking at new areas that can support 

both offshore renewable and conventional development. 

Senator SCOTT. If you are confirmed, my office would look forward to having an open relationship, an open dialog, with your office in helping us a, achieve my goal at least, of having the Atlantic, have the seismic information gathered as quickly as or as expeditiously as possible and then hopefully with that determination, 

allowing for some type of offshore energy production that will benefit the country as well as those jobs in South Carolina. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Senator, if I’m confirmed I look forward to working closely with you. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you very much, Ma’am. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Scott. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
26 

To Ms. Schneider, as Assistant Secretary of the Land and Minerals Management you’re going to have oversight of AML, I understand. 

In West Virginia last year our little State received 66, I think, 

and a half million dollars. It’s a very important program for us to 

clean up the former mining sites and promote environmental conservation, community health. 

How do you intend to continue this program or how do you intend to fund it? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Senator, I have not had an opportunity to think 

a great deal about Federal fiscal issues in terms of where we are 

on the funding side of things. It’s not something I’ve focused on in 

my private practice. 

I do agree that full funding for the Abandoned Mine Lands program is critically important. Similarly, Senator Murkowski, you 

know, this is the legacy wells. 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes, this is all paid for basically by the mining of the mineral. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. OK. So from it’s not supported by the public 

tax dollars. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Right. No, I understand that, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. The distribution, what I’d like to know, if 

from a lot of our western lands who produce great quantities because of the seam height don’t really have the problems that we 

out in the east have in Appalachia that really built the industrial 

revolution, if you will and would really, most of the money is needed to cure a lot of the problems of the past. 

It’s like a war going on back and forth. We’re trying to find that 

balance. I just want to make sure you’re up to the task jumping 

in this thing and trying to get the money where it’s needed. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. I’m absolutely looking to, if confirmed, to working with you to understand that balance better to make sure that 

meet all of the appropriate needs. 

Senator MANCHIN. I know you’ve also done all the work with renewables and also about the grid system. You know with the basic 

base load fuels that we have right now which is coal, gas and nuclear. They’re the only ones that run 24/7. 

There’s going to be a need for that and a blend and a balance 

to be had. How do you intend to work to find that balance especially with the grid system and bringing on renewables, but also 

making sure that the base load is able to deliver electricity that is 

needed? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Alright. 

Well I certainly agree that we need to have diversity in our fuel 

mix. I do a lot of work with utilities at present and that’s a critically important part of what we’re working on. As intermittent 

sources come online there needs to be modernization of the grid so 

that there can be facilities that are quicker starting and more efficient to help deliver the energy more efficiently and more cost effectively for consumers. 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you agree that coal plays a vital part in 

delivering the energy this country is dependent upon? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. I do, sir. 
27 

Senator MANCHIN. Mr. Kornze, if I may, as an avid outdoorsman 

myself and I understand you are too, you’re going to be asked to 

work to maximize access to public lands for hunting, fishing and 

recreational purposes. Are you an advocate of rehabilitation is basically is habitat. 

You know, in a lot of places we can’t do any habitat enhancements, along the national forest and in our fish and wildlife. 

What’s your position on that? 

Mr. KORNZE. I’m not sure I understand the—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Basically, you know, a lot of the hunting and 

fishing that might be, we can’t do habitat enhancement that 

food—— 

Mr. KORNZE. OK. 

Senator MANCHIN. Type of trees we plant, type of shelters we put 

in waters for fish habitat. Are you in support of maybe enhancing 

that a little bit and talking to your colleagues throughout this process? We have a heck of a time right now. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yes. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

You know, actually we had a leadership meeting at the BLM a 

few weeks ago and one of my requests of our full leadership team 

was that we were better integrated with the State Fish and Wildlife agencies and that we’re keen off of State wildlife action plans. 

Senator MANCHIN. How about access to public lands and that? 

Mr. KORNZE. Access? 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you favor opening up public lands to fishing and hunting? 

Mr. KORNZE. Absolutely. When it comes to hunting one of the 

things we’re very proud of at the Bureau of Land Management is 

that 99 percent of the lands that we manage are open to hunting. 

Senator MANCHIN. I think, Dr. Kastner, I have one here. Almost 

5 billion dollars the Office of Science’s research budget greater than 

fossil energy, renewable energy and nuclear energy combined. If 

confirmed, what is your vision for how research performed by your 

office will work in concert with the directed energy research in the 

other areas of fossil, nukes and renewables? 

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

The reorganization that the Secretary has undertaken creating 

an Under Secretary for Science and Energy, I think, is a great step 

toward bringing the Office of Science closer to the technology areas. 

After all, there’s basic science underlying all of these areas. I think 

it’s really important that I work, if confirmed, work carefully and 

aggressively with my colleagues in the technology areas to make 

sure that we can do the best to take the discoveries of basic science 

and get them into technology for the benefit of the American people. 

Senator MANCHIN. Dr. Williams, my time has expired. So I’m 

going to submit my question to you. But just about coal. I know 

you haven’t had much work in that. I know also that you’re looking 

at carbon capture, sequestration. So I would like to meet with you 

and talk further about that, Ma’am. 

Mr. KASTNER. I look forward to it. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you both. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Manchin, just before we leave. I’m very 

pleased that you brought up the importance of the hunters and anglers on these public lands. One of the things that we’re very proud 

of in our part of the world is on the O&C bill for the rural counties 

in Oregon. The hunters and anglers are very much in support of 

the legislation. 

This is part of the recreation economy. What we learned when Sally Jewell was here is that’s a $646 billion American industry. 

So I really appreciate your bringing that up. 

Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to all of you. 

Dr. Kastner, it’s great to have someone with your background in 

this Office of Science which is, I hope you know, I feel is awfully 

important. 

I have one parochial question. I don’t need much of an answer. 

Oak Ridge is tearing down a museum site for atomic energy and 

putting it in another place. I would like to ask you if you would 

be willing to come talk to me about what you propose to do with 

the museum site before you do it. 

I mean, I’m not asking you to do anything with it. I just want 

to know what you’re going to do before you do it. 

Mr. KASTNER. Thank you for the question. Of course, I’d be 

happy to come and talk to you about it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Now let me get to a more global concern. 

Dr. Moniz, who we all respect, says he can’t make decisions 

about fusion energy because he used to work on it at MIT. I guess, 

so did you. What I’m concerned about, who is going to make the 

decisions if you don’t. 

I’m quite serious. This is not funny. This is a serious matter be- cause you’ve got a $4.8 billion budget, $400 million, I mean 10 percent of that goes to fusion. Over the next few years it might be 50 

percent. 

If you don’t make any decisions about fusion then you’re not 

making any decisions about priorities within your budget. 

My question is will you make decisions about fusion, at least in 

so far, that it permits you to make good decisions about priorities 

within your budget because to date fusion has been pretty far down 

the line of Department of Energy priorities. 

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

I agree with you that fusion is very important. I am recused from 

participating in any discussions about fusion or other issues that 

directly affect MIT. If confirmed I will work with the General 

Counsel in the Department of Energy to explore, to understand, 

what broader fusion issues I might be—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. I’m not trying to get you to spend more 

money for fusion. I’m saying it’s already a low priority within your 

Department. If you and Dr. Moniz, neither one, can make any decision about fusion, you’re turning over priority setting to somebody 

else. So—— 

Mr. KASTNER. So let me say a couple of things. 

First of all it’s not clear that I will be excluded from making— 
29 

Senator ALEXANDER. Good. I don’t want you to be excluded. I’d 

like for you to be included. 

Mr. KASTNER. To the extent that I am, the Under Secretary for 

Science and Energy would fill that gap. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Who’s that? 

Mr. KASTNER. That, hopefully, if confirmed it will be Lynn-Orr. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Don’t you think the Director of the Office of 

Science should set priorities for forms of energy within the Office 

of Science, particularly if the Secretary can’t? 

Mr. KASTNER. As I said, at the moment it’s not clear that I will 

be excluded from making those kinds of broad decisions. 

Senator ALEXANDER. OK. I hope you’re not. 

Let me ask Dr. Williams. 

Dr. Williams, I’d like to encourage you to do missionary work, at 

least on the Republican side of the aisle here, because I like 

ARPA–E a lot and I think not enough of us know what you’re 

doing. I’d like for you to address specifically, for example, we have 

coal Senators here for people who care about coal on both sides of 

the aisle. 

I’m not sure enough of them know that one of the ARPA–E companies in which you invest is trying to take carbon dioxide and coal 

plants, feed it to microbes and turn the CO2 into a commercially 

viable product which if you could, then that would certainly make 

coal a much more easily—easy to use. 

So I’d like to encourage you to do that. Answer this question. Do 

you see your job as picking winners and losers and leave me 20 seconds to ask one last question. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Senator. 

ARPA–E’s mission is to accelerate potentially transformative 

technologies in their most earliest stages of development. We know 

that we have in this country a great—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes, I know. But you’re not there to pick 

winners and losers are you? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. That’s correct. 

So our job is to make it possible for those very early stage developments to move forward to the next stage of development so, without picking winners and losers, allowing the winners and losers— 

Senator ALEXANDER. So the answer is no. Is that right? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. The answer is no. 

The answer is no. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Now to the last question I would go to Ms. Schneider and Mr. 

Kornze. 

Senator Heinrich talked about the beautiful views of the mountains in New Mexico and the importance of reconciling that with 

energy development. 

Senator Manchin talked about that his abandoned land mines 

and there’s a big—a lot of money that needs to be spent on abandoned land mines. 

According to the American Bird Conservancy by 2030 there will 

be 100 thousand wind turbines that you can see for 20 miles. So 

have either of you thought about one, the effect that has on the 

beautiful mountains of New Mexico, these Cuisinarts in the sky 

which a bird—— 
30 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. Or have you, Ms. Schneider, thought about 

how you’re going to pay for taking those down after 20 years when 

they don’t operate any more so you don’t have a problem like we 

do with abandoned land mines. Do you—will there be a bond and 

a bond sufficiently to require the wind developer if that’s not being 

used to take it down and take it away? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Senator, thank you for the question. 

I have done wind development work myself. I think with all large 

industrial facilities siting is key and that’s the critically important 

component of that. In part of that you have to take, not only the 

resources into consideration, but also the environmental impacts 

including impacts to avian resources as well as to the view shed. 

In my experience the BLM rights of ways that are issued for 

those projects do require the developer to remove those facilities if 

the right of way is not removed, excuse me, not renewed. 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, I would echo many of those comments. It 

is my understanding that with all projects that we permitting 

today that they do have bonds to make sure that we can do proper 

reclamation. So it’s very important to us, in addition to making 

sure that we have an open and public process when we discuss 

siting of those places to make sure they’re done in the right places. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

In order of appearance Senator Barrasso is next and then we’ll 

have Senator Lee. 

Senator BARRASSO. I’m happy to defer to Senator Lee. 

The CHAIRMAN. So much collegiality. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. What’s the pleasure of my colleague? 

Senator LEE. Wyoming has always been such a good neighbor to 

Utah. They’ve never tried to invade us or anything like that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEE. I appreciate the generous thought. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve heard of that Good Neighbor Policy. 

Senator LEE. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you for 

being here. 

I’d like to start with Mr. Kornze. 

So recently the BLM withdrew a fairly significant amount of land 

from multiple use designation and set it aside to create a highly 

touted solar energy zones. You know this and other policies show 

that BLM is a strong supporter of renewable energy. Renewable 

energy, I think, all would agree is a good thing. 

At the same time there are a lot of people concerned that oil and 

gas companies are seeing these changing policies with regard to 

Federal land. Seeing that 1 day they might be able to consider exploring or developing oil and gas production projects on Federal 

land and then the next day there’s a regulatory or a policy change 

within the Bureau or within the Department that makes that impossible. 

Another example of this is that recently in Utah where there 

were 100,000 acres of land that had previously been designated as 
31 

eligible for leasing for oil and gas production on Federal land under 

the RMP. It was taken out of its eligibility for leasing 3 days before 

a scheduled auction. This constituted the vast majority of the land 

that was to be auctioned 3 days after the announcement was made. 

Again, this is causing a problem because a lot of the companies 

that engage in these activities that want to develop our energy resources here in the United States so as to contribute to our energy 

independence are choosing to shy away from Federal public land 

understanding that these regulatory changes create a lot of uncertainty for them. 

This is more than an abstract problem. It’s far more than a problem for just the energy companies. This is a problem, especially for 

our rural communities in public land States like mine where the 

Federal Government owns two-thirds of the land. 

These communities rely on these kinds of projects in order to 

fund basic things like the development of their infrastructure to 

fund their public school systems, their fire and police departments. 

Because in many of these counties where this is the case, the Federal Government owns 80, 85, 90, sometimes 95 percent of the 

land. They can’t tax that land. The PILT program in most cases 

provides only pennies on the dollar of what they would otherwise 

receive for property taxes. 

So they’re strapped. 

So my question is, do you see this trend as a problem? If so, what 

might you do, if confirmed, to address this problem? What might 

you do to address the problem? 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, I appreciate the question. 

There’s a lot in there that we can discuss, but it’s important the 

Bureau of Land Management is—provides clarity. What our policies are, what direction we’re headed into. That’s one of the reasons 

why in my opening statement I focused on, you know, clear communication and making sure that people understand the resources 

that are available and also our intentions. 

So I certainly understand some of the frustrations you’ve expressed. If confirmed, you have my commitment that I focus on 

making sure that we are a consistent partner that people can rely 

on. 

Senator LEE. Transparency is an issue that Secretary Jewell explained to us and she embraces, when she was before our committee going through her confirmation process. Do you share that 

commitment to transparency? 

Mr. KORNZE. Absolutely. 

Senator LEE. Ms. Schneider, do you also share that same commitment to transparency that Secretary Jewell has articulated? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Yes, Senator. 

Senator LEE. During your tenure in the Clinton Administration 

were you involved in the process of designating any national monuments? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. I was not. 

Senator LEE. OK. 

One of the reasons why I’m focusing on this issue of transparency today and why it’s concerning to me is that we had a very 

significant monument designation that was made in Utah, the 

Grand Staircase National Monument and the decision to designate 
32 

that as a monument, a very, very large one at that. One that took 

in a vast swath of land with enormous energy potential. 

It was not made in view of the public. There is no opportunity 

for public comment. In fact the announcement of it was made without any advance warning and was made not in Utah, but in a 

neighboring State. 

So, this kind of lack of transparency is concerting to me and particularly with regard to the exercise of the vast discretion granted 

to the President in the Antiquities Act I would hope and expect 

that any future exercises of that authority would be made to the 

greatest extent possible with transparency and input from the public, especially from those who will be affected most directly by it. 

Thank you. I see my time’s expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, Senator Barrasso. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Senator Barrasso. 

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

Congratulations to all of you. 

Thank you, Mr. Kornze for taking the time to visit with me in 

my office. You know, as we discussed yesterday I do remain concerned that you lack the experience required for the position of 

BLM Director specifically because the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act states that the BLM Director shall have a ‘‘broad 

background and substantial experience in public land and natural 

resource management.’’ 

The President’s last nominee, Bob Abbey, had over 30 years of 

experience in land and natural resource management prior to his 

nomination. His predecessor, Jim Caswell, also had over 30 years 

of experience in land and natural resource management prior to his 

nomination. 

In contrast, as we’ve discussed, you spent less than 3 years at 

BLM and no time at any other land management agency. With all 

due respect to the Majority Leader, who was here to introduce you, 

I think this is not the resume of the perfect nominee. To me it 

doesn’t suggest that you will be the ‘‘best Director we’ve ever had’’ 

is how Senator Reid stated it. 

So now that the Majority Leader has, who happens to have been 

your former employer, has eliminated the rights of the minority in 

the confirmation process, I think it’s more important than ever that 

this committee carefully weigh the qualifications of all nominees. 

It’s imperative that this committee makes it clear that the lower 

threshold for confirmation does not mean a lower standard for 

nominees and that the President cannot ignore the requirements of 

the Federal law. 

There is a reason that the law requires the BLM Director to have 

‘‘a broad background and substantial experience in public land and 

natural resource management.’’ BLM manages about 245 million 

surface acres and 700 million mineral acres. The agency has about 

10,000 employees. It’s not a position for on the job training. 

It’s a position that has an extraordinary impact on the lives and 

livelihoods of millions of Americans. 

So I believe the burden remains on you, Mr. Kornze, to show us 

why you should be confirmed. 
33 

So I’d like to turn to the BLM’s pending hydraulic fracturing 

rule. Secretary Jewell has said that we need minimum Federal 

standards for hydraulic fracturing. That may be the case with respect to States that do not regulate hydraulic fracturing. But there 

is no reason why BLM’s rule should apply to States that currently 

regulate hydraulic fracturing. 

In June, Secretary Jewell was unable to tell this committee that 

the States currently regulating hydraulic fracturing aren’t doing a 

sufficient job. Rather the Secretary applauded the States that currently regulate hydraulic fracturing. 

The Secretary testified that Wyoming is a good example of a 

State that is doing an effective job regulating hydraulic fracturing. 

She testified in the House that Wyoming has ‘‘great,’’ sophisticated 

fracturing rules. The Secretary made these comments before Wyoming adopted additional rules requiring baseline ground water 

testing. Nevertheless BLM still seems to believe that States like 

Wyoming just can’t be trusted. 

So my question to you is, is there any evidence suggesting that 

States like Wyoming will weaken or roll back their hydraulic fracturing regulations? If so, you know, which States do you have in 

mind? 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, thank you for the question. Thank you for 

the time to meet yesterday. I enjoyed our conversation. 

Related to the hydraulic fracturing rule there are some States 

that have certainly stepped out and appear to be doing a very good 

job. Wyoming is one of those States. Colorado, California, Texas, 

have all taken the task seriously. We appreciate that very much. 

I think the task that we face at the Bureau of Land Management 

is that we have somewhere around 33 States where there are oil 

and gas revenues being produced on public lands. But there are 

just over half of those States have stepped forward to establish 

some sort of base line regulation when it comes to hydraulic fracturing. So our goal is to establish something that can be coordinated with States to the greatest degree possible. 

In August I was very happy to visit in Denver with the oil and 

gas regulators from many States, including Wyoming, to talk about 

how State regulations and Federal regulations can fit better together. Also looking forward how our Inspection Enforcement 

Teams can be better coordinated so we can maximize our activities 

on the ground and make sure they’re doing the best job in the oil 

and gas realm. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, if that’s alright? 

The CHAIRMAN. Of course. Of course. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great. 

This is to Ms. Schneider. 

In June you published a commentary on BLM’s pending hydraulic fracturing rule. In that commentary you wrote that BLM’s revised rule, ‘‘would add another layer of regulation to oil and gas operators on Federal and tribal lands and if adopted could impose 

significant new regulatory requirements and associated costs.’’ 

If confirmed, you would oversee BLM. So what steps, if any, 

would you take to reduce the regulatory burden and the cost associated with BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule? 
34 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Senator, thank you for the question. 

I think we need to try to find ways to maximize our efficiencies 

where we can including to work together with the States in order 

to accomplish that goal. You know, I know that the BLM has just 

closed the public comment period a number of months ago on the 

rule. They’re taking those comments into consideration. 

If confirmed, I would certainly become more involved in the process to learn and understand what the comments say so that we can 

develop a final rule that makes sense. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank my colleague. 

I think my colleague from Wyoming knows how much I enjoy 

working with him. I think what we were able to do in a bipartisan 

way—I think we were visiting about it this morning—on the grazing issue, where you and Senator Heinrich with Senator Murkowski and I worked together, was really an example of how policy 

ought to be made. 

I think Neil Kornze is going to bring that to us in this whole effort. I would just put into the record a letter from John Laird, Secretary of Natural Resources for the State of California. 

He states and I quote here. ‘‘Mr. Kornze’s collaborative style approach to Western States and experience within the Department of 

the Interior will serve him well as he addresses the many resource 

management issues the Bureau of Land Management,’’ you know, 

‘‘oversees.’’ 

I mean so the record is clear. This is an individual with extensive 

experience with public land issues in addition to having run BLM 

for the better part of the year, he’s got more than a decade of experience both at the Department of the Interior and in the Congress 

working on these issues. So this is an individual who is steeped in 

public lands questions. 

I just wanted to make Mr. Laird’s letter a part of the record and 

let my colleague from Wyoming know that we are going to continue 

to work very closely with him on these issues because the need for 

collaboration is so critical. 

Senator Hoeven, we’re glad you’re here. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to begin with first of all, thanks to all of you for being 

here. I want to begin with a question for Ms. Schneider. 

Really picking up where you left off following the Senator from 

Wyoming’s question. That is hydraulic fracturing. 

States like North Dakota, Wyoming, Texas and others have very 

sophisticated protocols for overseeing hydraulic fracturing. So as 

you work on your rule you need to work with the States. I really 

believe in that States’ first approach. It’s been used in other types 

of energy regulation. 

I want to hear your views on really working with the States to 

empower the States on hydraulic fracturing. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Senator, thank you for the question. 

I want to also thank you for the time that we spend last week 

when we met together. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. 
35 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. As I mentioned, I think it’s critically important 

to work with the States. I mean, the States are obviously on the 

ground there and they know what’s going on. So we want to make 

sure that we take all of the information that they’ve developed and 

integrate that as best we can into the Federal decisionmaking process. 

Senator HOEVEN. Are you willing to work in a way with the 

States that really gives them that States’ first approach in terms 

of the regulatory authority? 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. I think what we want to do is, if I’m confirmed, 

I want to, you know, sit down and meet with the folks at the BLM 

to get an understanding of what their perspectives are, get an understanding of what the States’ perspectives are and then move forward in that direction. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Kornze, I want to thank you for coming out 

to North Dakota. We appreciate it very much with Secretary 

Jewell. Of course, appreciate Secretary Jewell being there as well 

as we’ve had our Chairman and Ranking Member from this Energy 

Committee both have been out too. For all of you, that’s the way 

to do your homework. And thank you so much. 

So the first question that I’d have for you, Mr. Kornze, is we 

have 525 applications pending on BLM land in North Dakota. I’ve 

talked to you about this before. We need to find ways to address 

that backlog. 

You have a tremendous regional manager out of Billings, Jamie 

Conley, who we love working with, who is trying to find creative 

solutions. 

Will you commit to continue to work with her and us to find creative solutions to address that backlog? 

Mr. KORNZE. Absolutely, Senator. I appreciate the question. 

North Dakota presents a unique challenge in terms of the resource in the Bakken and the growth of the access into the Bakken 

over the last few years. So we have moved strike teams into our 

Dickinson office when possible. I certainly commit to you to keep 

working on that, if confirmed to make that a priority and get the 

resources to the right places. 

Senator HOEVEN. We have legislation pending right now which 

I think will pass very soon. It’s the BLM Flexibility Act. It would 

allow offices to work across State lines. 

So for example, your Mile City, Montana office could work in 

North Dakota. This will also help Wyoming. I see that the good 

Senator from Wyoming has left, but will you help us with that legislation and then also work to implement it once passed? 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, that kind of flexibility would be a great 

gift to the agency. We have moving pieces, you know, a few years 

ago Mile City was in high demand, now it’s Dickinson. A few years 

ago it was Buffalo, Wyoming, now it’s Casper. 

So increased flexibility would be something we would welcome 

with open arms. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to make sure 

that’s implemented appropriately. 

Senator HOEVEN. OK. Again, I want to thank all of you for being 

here, but I particularly again, want to thank Mr. Kornze for com-
36 

ing out to our State, seeing what’s going on, spending time, meeting the people. I appreciate that very much. 

Thanks to both you and Ms. Schneider for coming by to see me 

and talk about these issues, so my thanks and appreciation for 

that. 

Thanks to all of you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

We’re going to have another round. I have some additional questions. I think Senator Murkowski does. 

Let me start with you, if I might, Mr. Kornze. 

We covered a lot of ground on the first round. You’re going to be 

working with us on the question of fair return on public lands, especially with the GAO reports that are coming out. 

You’ll work with me on an issue of enormous importance to my 

constituents which is really looking at NEPA in the context of 

these rural Oregon counties where we can build on some of your 

experience. I think, very welcome, again, with large landscape scale 

work in the forests. 

I want to address the two goals of NEPA. We’ve got to look at 

the environmental impacts of proposed action. We’ve got to inform 

the public and find a way to not have unnecessary delay. 

You’ve indicated that you would work with us on that. 

You’ll work with us on a long-term solution for county funding 

because as you know, ever since 2000 when that law was written 

here in this committee, that has been a challenge. 

So we have essentially addressed those 3 issues to recap. 

I want to talk to you now about helium and then I want to talk 

to you about methane leakage on this round. 

The Congress, as you know, recently passed legislation allowing 

BLM to continue to operate the Federal Helium Reserve. But in 

doing so the Congress made a number of very important changes 

in the way BLM is supposed to operate including the use of open 

auctions. 

The helium program is certainly not the largest that is operated 

at the BLM. But certainly, as Senator Murkowski and I and a lot 

of Senators learned, helium is enormously important to the American economy. For example, it was well-documented what the implications were for MRIs, but for example, INTEL, a huge private 

sector employer in my home State, cares tremendously about this 

issue, as do many other technology companies. 

If you’re confirmed, will you make sure that implementation of 

the helium legislation is a top BLM priority, including upgrades to 

equipment to keep the reserve operating or completed as quickly as 

possible and that you will work with the committee to meet the requirements of the legislation? 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, I appreciate the question. I also appreciate 

the work of this committee, in particular, the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member, in making the Helium Stewardship Act possible. 

Not only is the continuation of the program important, but also 

what you were able to do with the funds, notably, legacy wells is 

much appreciated. 

You have my, if confirmed, you have my absolute commitment to 

make sure that we are at the table and working swiftly to implement that law. I got an update as recently as yesterday and we’re 
37 

making good progress in implementing different pieces of the act 

and look forward to continuing to be at the table throughout and 

to make sure that that’s done well and done successfully. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s do this, because I think that’s very constructive. Can we just say that you will give us regular updates on 

the implementation of the helium legislation? 

I’m going to work with the staff because we call audibles here 

from time to time and want to have some time to consult with you. 

But let’s set up a regular update system where Senator Murkowski 

and I would get, on an ongoing basis, information about the implementation of that program. 

It is so important, and suffice it to say, I think something like 

3 presidents and 5 Congresses have tried to get this right. I think 

we finally struck a balance with the auctions, trying to address the 

needs of American industry and we were able to generate more revenue than we thought which has been of great help to a number 

of the public purposes that this committee has to address. 

So I think we’re off to a strong start. But it would be very helpful 

to have regular updates. Is that something that is acceptable to 

you? 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, we would be happy to provide regular updates to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Let’s talk now about methane leakage. 

As you and I talked about my view is this is one of the premier 

environmental challenges of our time. It is many times more potent 

even than carbon dioxide. So this is a matter of enormous environmental and public health concern. 

Recently the Department of the Interior released their statement 

on regulatory priorities for 2014. In the release the Department 

prioritized the reduction of wasted oil and gas from production on 

Federal onshore lands. That would mean reductions in flaring of 

associated gas and reductions in fugitive and vented methane emissions. 

It would also mean greater royalty payments for oil and gas produced on Federal lands and an increase in sources of American energy. 

The Department has announced an August 2014 deadline for this 

proposal which is a slight delay from the previous commitment of 

May. 

Discuss if you would the issue of wasted oil and gas resources on 

Federal land and your commitment to making sure that there is a 

strong and effective rule, a strong and effective final rule, to prevent wasted oil and gas resources. 

Mr. KORNZE. Senator, I appreciate the question. This is a very 

important issue. 

We intend to develop a rule around methane capture. It would 

be onshore order No. 9. The onshore orders are how we regulate 

oil and gas. 

Right now we have a notice to leasees in place which is 20 to 30 

years old. So there’s a lot of updating to do. 

One of the key steps we’re going to be taking is looking at the 

recent study that came out from the Environmental Defense Fund 
38 

and the University of Texas which pointed out some weaknesses in 

the general system. 

Also we’ll be talking closely with the State of Colorado which has 

stepped out in recent weeks with a State-level regulation for methane capture. 

Also working closely with States like North Dakota where there 

is quite a bit of venting and flaring comparatively. I know one of 

the main challenges in that State is midstream, making sure those 

pipelines to get that gas out of there. 

So there’s many challenges associated with this. It’s a high priority for us. We look forward to working with you and this committee with that challenge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that. 

I share your view. This is an issue with great implications. 

For example, the House passed a pipeline bill here recently. One 

of the issues that I’ve been exploring and will be anxious to talk 

to colleagues about is saying for the future we’re going to need 

more pipelines because we’ve got to get the gas to market. But they 

ought to be better pipelines and in particular, if we can reduce 

methane leakage by having smarter pipelines for the future, this 

is an opportunity to do something that could be very good for the 

American economy and also very good for the planet. 

So I’m going to want to explore that with you. I, of course, want 

to talk to colleagues here in the committee about it first. But your 

involvement on the methane leakage issue is very important. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kornze, I appreciate you bringing up the issue of the Alaska 

land conveyances and where we are, the fact that our technologies 

will allow us to move more quickly when it comes to the completion 

of these surveys. I don’t think most people can appreciate, nor 

would they tolerate that a promise made at statehood, now some 

54 years after statehood, in terms of promises made in terms of 

conveyances, that those conveyances have not yet been complete 

because much of the preliminary survey work has not been done. 

It’s just incomprehensible to a lot of people. 

But it comes down to priorities within a budget. Unfortunately 

we have not seen the priority placed on this. It’s not just this Administration. It goes back quite a ways. 

So I appreciate your commitment to help us with seeing that this 

promise made to the State at statehood and to Alaska natives with 

the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act, that these promises are kept. 

So I do think that in terms of making sure that we place priorities in those areas where we have legislative mandates. We’re 40 

years delinquent on fulfilling, that those priorities would come before some priorities whether it’s climate change monitoring or adaptation. Things that are brand new on the ground. In the meantime you’ve got promises that are pretty dated. 

We need to address them. It’s not just the land conveyance. It’s 

the legacy wells that you have mentioned. 

A couple times now we were successful in getting $50 million 

from helium sales which helped. But the reality is is the necessary 

moneys were not included in the budget. It was through the efforts 
39 

of the Chairman and myself as well as colleagues in the other body 

to help advance that. 

We also have further issues as they relate to contaminated lands 

that have been conveyed to Alaska natives. The No. 1 priority at 

the Alaska Native Village CEOs is to deal with this issue of the 

cleanup of these contaminated lands. Kind of a raw deal when 

you’re told OK, here’s your land conveyance, your promise. But it’s 

fouled or contaminated land. 

So we have much to do in this area. I appreciate your attention 

to it. You certainly know about the issues. We need to make sure 

that the priorities in terms of addressing them and keeping that 

commitment and promise are made. 

So, appreciate the opportunity we had to discuss it. We will be 

looking forward to more conversation and more action on that. 

Ms. Schneider, I just, as I was sitting here in midway through 

this hearing, received a letter from my Governor, who is writing on 

behalf of the Outer Continental Shelf Governor’s Coalition. He is 

the Chair of that. 

He has stated in this letter that he hopes that the OCS Governor’s Coalition can cultivate a substantive ongoing dialog with 

you, if you are confirmed, on the opportunities and challenges facing offshore energy development and the roles the coastal States 

play. 

He goes on to outline a number of concerns, a number of questions, much of which relate to the concern that there is not much 

dialog, perhaps no dialog between the States and the agencies as 

it relates to the planning for much of what goes on in the offshore 

and asks specifically to discuss the legal and otherwise appropriate 

role for the input of State governments and what actions would you 

take to ensure sufficient and ongoing input from the States. 

Other issues that he raises are, again, the timeliness of permits 

for OCS oil and natural gas operators, further issues on revenue 

sharing, following up on the question of Senator Scott, leasing 

plans in the Atlantic and additional leasing opportunities going forward. 

Recognizing that we’re pretty much out of time here, I would 

submit the Governor’s letter for the record and would ask that you 

respond to these questions as you respond to the additional questions for the record that I will be submitting to you. 

I do think that these are very important questions that have 

been raised. 

I guess I would ask you to speak just briefly here to what role 

you do believe, in terms of input from the States and State governments. What role is there? Do you think that you have sufficient 

input right now from the States because apparently the States or 

this coalition does not think that we do have that sufficient input 

that that dialog is strong and robust as it needs to be. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t want my friend and colleague to be shortchanged on this. I plead guilty to having one additional question 

by the way. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I do not want Senator Murkowski short 

changed-since she’s raising an important point and I think that direct question was directed at you, Ms. Schneider. 
40 

So please proceed. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. Yes. 

Thank you, Senator. 

I can’t speak to the level of dialog ongoing currently between the 

States and the Administration as I’m not part of the Administration. But I am committed to improving dialog between the States. 

I worked for the State of Oregon for a couple of years. I worked 

for the State of Florida. I understand that States have perspectives 

and they have voices and they need to be heard. 

I think, if confirmed, I will do everything I can to make sure that 

States are heard, that I go out, I meet with the States, that I go 

to the various States to understand what their perspectives are because obviously things are different in the different jurisdictions 

and that the States have an ample opportunity to voice their opinions on development opportunities both onshore and offshore. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I might suggest that this OCS Governor’s 

Coalition might be a great place for you to start. 

Ms. SCHNEIDER. I agree. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That dialog. 

So I’m sure that they will look forward to hearing from you on 

many of these important issues. 

Mr. Chairman, I do have additional questions that I will submit 

for the record. 

Probably one that I would like you to, both Ms. Schneider and 

Mr. Kornze to focus on a little more intently is the question that 

relates to ANILCA and the, basically, the history and the premise 

behind the ANILCA provisions and the no more clause. 

We are daily concerning in Alaska that this Administration will 

move forward in announcing new wilderness in our State, new wilderness most particularly up in the coastal plain and in direct violation and contravention of the ANILCA Act. 

So I would ask that you look critically at that, that you look to 

the history of ANILCA as you understand how, not only the issue 

of wilderness plays out, but so many other aspects of management 

of our lands in the State tie into the provisions of ANILCA and 

most specifically the no more clause contained within that act. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for an extra few minutes there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Schneider, I very much share Senator Murkowski’s point 

about listening to the States. Since you were in the State, you 

probably know that I’ve had something like 660 town hall meetings. Folks always say ‘‘When’s the next one?’’ because I think 

there is, as Senator Murkowski pointed out, such a hunger in the 

West simply because we are so far from Washington, DC, for people 

to have a chance to weigh in on these issues. 

So let me just underscore what my colleague has said about the 

importance of listening to folks and particularly in the West. 

Last question that I wanted to ask is about technology transfer 

for you, Dr. Kastner and Dr. Williams. 

We’ve had all kinds of ideas floated up here on the Hill to make 

the national labs better at tech transfer, to make it easier for businesses to partner with them, and to tap into the unique capabilities 

and expertise that we have at the national labs. 
41 

I don’t want you to feel short-changed for purposes of this discussion. You can give us an expanded answer. But why don’t you each 

highlight, if you could do a couple of things to improve the tech 

transfer process, what would you do? 

Start with you, Dr. Kastner. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Then we can liberate you four. It’s been a long 

morning. 

Mr. KASTNER. Thank you, Senator. 

I think tech transfer is really very important. At MIT we have 

a very strong record in this taking scientific discovery to the stage 

of technology and then into creating small companies so that these 

things come to the marketplace. 

I believe that a lot more could be done. But I really need still 

to understand what is being done better before I would make specific recommendations. But let me say that this is really important 

to me, if confirmed, I would work really hard on it because I think 

it’s extremely important that the investments in basic science pay 

off for the American people in ways that improve their lives. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Williams. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much for that question. 

I believe there is a special area where there’s a gap we can help 

to bridge in bringing the creativity of basic science through to the 

next stage of development where the market can take over and 

make choices. 

So, if confirmed, I would be very excited to work with ARPA–E 

on that mission of identifying the very early stage, basic science results that have the potential to become transformative. Many of 

those will come from our national laboratory system and work to 

get those over that gap of basic to demonstration so that they can 

later move on into technology transfer to commercial sector. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all. 

I think at this point you all have been very patient and have 

taken the time to answer a great number of questions. You could 

see the Senators’ interest. 

It’s my intention to support all of you very strongly. I believe 

Senator Murkowski, perhaps we ought to leave the record open 

until tomorrow night? 

Is that acceptable? Do you wish for a longer period? What’s your 

pleasure? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly ready with 

all of my questions. I think we had pretty good participation here 

amongst the committee members. 

But I will put out the word to all the other members to get their 

questions in promptly then—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Very—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Would ask that the nominees respond in 

kind. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very, very good. 

I think we’ve had a lot of Senate participation. Senators may 

have additional questions. So, as Senator Murkowski has urged, 

we’re going to need quick responses. 

With that, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(43) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSE OF MARC A. KASTNER TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

FUSION ENERGY

Question 1. As you have experienced firsthand at MIT, sacrifices are being made 

in the funding of our domestic fusion programs to satisfy the US contribution to 

ITER, the international fusion project. 

• Do you feel that the right balance is currently being struck between domestic 

programs and ITER? • Are there other options that would not require sacrificing our domestic programs, but also would not expand the budget of the total fusion program? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will be recused from any particular matters that would 

have a direct and predictable effect on MIT, including any decisions on the future 

of the Alcator C-Mod fusion facility. I will follow guidance from DOE’s Designated 

Agency Ethics Official on whether that recusal should include other matters in the 

fusion program. 

That said, I certainly agree with you that finding the right balance between ITER 

and the domestic fusion program is very important. We have an international commitment to ITER, but we also have to maintain an impactful domestic program and 

domestic facilities. I am not yet part of the Department of Energy, so I cannot comment yet on what options might exist for fusion funding that don’t entail expanding 

the fusion budget overall. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the 

Fusion Energy Sciences program and how the domestic and international components are balanced. 

RESPONSES OF MARC A. KASTNER TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Recently, there have been concerns raised about the evolving missions 

of the national labs and the need to ensure that they support our national energy 

and security needs in the most efficient and cost-effective way. Do you believe the 

national labs need reform? If so, and if you are confirmed, what would you do to 

reform the national labs system? 

Answer. The national labs are a great strength of DOE and of the Office of 

Science. At the beginning of my career I worked at Argonne National Lab, and more 

recently at Brookhaven National Lab, and I saw firsthand the great science that 

emerges from the research of the national lab system. I am aware of the recent reports on the labs. I understand that the Department is in the process of constituting 

the National Lab Policy Council and National Lab Operations Board to look at lab 

issues, including those raised in various reports. Both of these groups contain representatives from the labs and DOE, working collaboratively together to find ways 

to improve our labs. If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Moniz and my counterparts across the Department on these important issues. I also look forward to working with you on this and other issues involving our national labs. 

Question 2. We now know that the Undersecretary for Science will not only oversee science-related offices but also all of the energy offices at DOE. If confirmed, 

how would you anticipate working together with a much wider array of offices with 

a range of different missions? 

Answer. I believe the new responsibilities of the Undersecretary for Science will 

enhance collaboration between the Office of Science and other programs by regularly 
44 

bringing the leaderships of these programs together in order to foster collaboration 

and coordination. The Office of Science has a long history of working well with the 

applied and technology offices to make sure the basic science portfolio is aligned 

well with needs of the technology offices. I have learned that there are multiple 

‘‘tech teams’’ and working groups that bring people from across the Department together on various topics. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Undersecretary for Science and Energy and my colleagues across energy program offices to 

help turn discoveries in basic science into advancements in clean energy technologies that reach the marketplace. 

Question 3. I think we would all like to see fusion energy happen by the middle 

of this century or sooner but I’ve been advised that there are plenty of science and 

materials issues to be resolved before we can even think of fusion power. Could you 

tell me your thoughts on what are the priorities in fusion research for this country? 

Could you also address DOE’s ever increasing commitment to the International 

Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, which some say has a negative impact on our 

future domestic research and development capabilities? 

Answer. I want to preface this answer by noting that, if confirmed, I will be 

recused from any particular matters that would have a direct and predictable effect 

on MIT, including any decisions on the future of the Alcator C-Mod fusion facility. 

I will follow guidance from DOE’s Designated Agency Ethics Official whether that 

recusal should include other issues in the Fusion program. 

That said, I agree that fusion energy holds great promise, but that there are still 

many technical, engineering, and scientific challenges before it becomes a viable and 

affordable source of energy. The Fusion Energy Sciences program funds research in 

order to find solutions to overcoming the materials and other challenges you mentioned. I believe that ITER and our domestic facilities and programs will all play 

a role in understanding how to control burning plasma leading toward a real fusion 

energy source. I recognize that ITER is a large and complex undertaking, both in 

terms of the size of the budget element and as an international scientific collaboration. 

RESPONSES OF MARC A. KASTNER TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LANDRIEU

Question 1. Dr. Kastner, as I understand it, Secretary Moniz has had to recuse 

himself from involvement in the Fusion Energy Sciences program because of MIT’s 

involvement in the fusion program and the fact that he was from MIT. Do you face 

a similar need to recuse yourself from involvement in fusion? 

Answer. While I do not have the information to comment on Secretary Moniz’s 

recusal, if confirmed, I will be recused from any particular matters that would have 

a direct and predictable effect on MIT, including any decision on the future of the 

Alcator C-Mod fusion facility. I will follow guidance from DOE’s Designated Agency 

Ethics Official on whether that recusal should include other matters in the fusion 

program. 

Question 2. Dr. Kastner, what is your opinion about the U.S. maintaining its commitment to the ITER fusion project? 

Answer. ITER is the largest and most complex international scientific project in 

fusion ever attempted. If successful, it would be the first realization of a ‘‘burning 

plasma’’ that would generate net energy for the first time. I think we must take 

our international commitments seriously, while ensuring a balanced fusion portfolio. 

Question 3. Dr. Kastner, I believe that it’s very important for the U.S. to maintain 

a healthy domestic fusion research program. But, it’s clear that for the past few 

years, many of our university fusion programs, including MIT, have suffered serious 

cuts and have lost students and professors. In addition, our major fusion experiments have only historically operated a handful of weeks a year because of inadequate budgets. What will you try to do about this if you are confirmed? Do you 

think that the necessary increased funding for the ITER project should come at the 

expense of the domestic fusion budget? 

Answer. I want to preface this answer by noting that, if confirmed, I will be 

recused from any particular matters that would have a direct and predictable effect 

on MIT, including any decisions on the future of the Alcator C-Mod fusion facility 

located at MIT. I will follow guidance from DOE’s Designated Agency Ethics Official 

whether that recusal should include other issues in the fusion program. 

I agree that it’s important we must strike the right balance between our domestic 

fusion program and ITER. It is my understanding that the Office of Science supports many students and scientists at fusion program and facilities across the country. 

In this time of lean budgets, it is important we take a hard look at how to best 

balance the fusion portfolio. We have an international commitment to ITER, but we 
45 

also must maintain an impactful domestic program and domestic facilities. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the Fusion Energy Sciences program 

and how the domestic and international components are balanced. 

RESPONSES OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. In a recent interview as the Chief Scientist for BP, you stated that 

BP Solar has pulled out of the solar energy business because of its inability to compete with inexpensive ‘‘made in China’’ solar panels. If confirmed as the head of 

ARPA-E, how would you address development of highly reliable and innovative energy production technologies while facing fierce competition from much cheaper solutions overseas? 

Answer. I believe it is important that any project receiving federal funds is 

equipped to compete in a global marketplace. While ARPA-E seeks to develop transformational energy technologies that do not exist today, I understand that the 

ARPA-E technology-to-market program provides awardees with practical training 

and critical business information to equip projects with a clear understanding of 

market needs to guide technical development and awareness of evolving markets to 

help technologies succeed. 

Further, I understand that ARPA-E requires small businesses to manufacture 

substantially in the United States any products used or sold in the United States 

that embody inventions that were first conceived of under an ARPA-E award. I also 

understand that ARPA-E requires large businesses to manufacture substantially in 

the United States any products that embody subject inventions, whether they are 

used and sold in the United States or overseas. 

If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about what ARPA-E can do to help 

U.S. businesses remain competitive in a global marketplace and advancing those opportunities. 

Question 2. By some estimates, the energy sector currently accounts for 14 percent 

of the nation’s freshwater consumption, but it is projected to account for 85 percent 

of the growth in freshwater consumption by 2030. I think we would all agree that 

water is vital in sustaining affordable, efficient and clean energy solutions, whether 

it is to cool power plants, produce and extract oil and gas, or grow feedstock for various biofuels. ARPA-E has invested some resources in examining these applications. 

What unique opportunities do you see that could make a substantial difference in 

water use and consumption in the energy production sector? 

Answer. As you may know, Secretary Moniz noted the importance of the energywater nexus in his confirmation hearing and I agree with his assessment of the significance of this topic. One of ARPA-E’s missions, improving energy efficiency in any 

economic sector, is closely aligned with improving water efficiency in the energy sector. This is because the major energy-related consumption of water in the United 

States is due to use of water for cooling to remove waste heat. Improved energy efficiency reduces waste heat and will directly reduce the related consumption of water. 

Opportunities to improve energy efficiency, with related decreases in water consumption, will include more efficient manufacturing processes, more efficient carbon 

capture processes, more efficient separations processes and more effective use of low 

grade heat. If confirmed, I would be interested in working within ARPA-E and with 

other federal agencies with direct responsibility for US water issues to assess potential opportunities in the energy-water nexus and in improved energy efficiency in 

reducing freshwater consumption. 

Question 3. I think a key to ARPA-E’s success is its ability to entice industry to 

pick up future technologies that solve specific energy problems. What is your understanding of the process by which technologies under research and development at 

ARPA-E are transferred from conceptual idea to market deployment? Please provide 

some previous statistics regarding the success in achieving market deployment. 

Answer. In my view, a key component of the ARPA-E model is the technologyto-market program. The ARPA-E technology-to-market program provides awardees 

with practical training and critical business information to equip projects with a 

clear understanding of market needs to guide technical development and help 

projects succeed. Awardees are required to provide a technology-to-market plan 

prior to receiving an award and work closely with ARPA-E’s technology-to-market 

advisors throughout the project, developing custom strategies to move projects toward the marketplace. In addition, ARPA-E facilitates relationships with investors, 

government agencies, small and large companies, and other organizations that are 

necessary to move awardees to the next stage of their project development. 

I am told that, as of March 2013, ARPA-E funding has led to the formation of 

12 new companies and 17 projects have attracted over $450 million in private sector 
46 

funding after ARPA-E’s initial investment of approximately $70 million. Several 

ARPA-E projects have begun demonstration testing with various public and private 

corporations to further develop their technologies. If confirmed, I look forward to 

continuing this important trajectory. 

Question 4. Do you think that ARPA-E is working in a synergetic way with other 

DOE offices, especially the Office of Science where one sees some overlap in research activities? I want to ensure that we don’t have too many duplicative and unnecessary efforts across the Department and that we optimize those activities that 

do overlap. One area of such potential duplication is energy storage R&D, with multiple programs, for example, at ARPA-E, the Office of Science and its national labs, 

and at Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Please comment. 

Answer. It is my understanding that programs throughout the Department address multiple stages of research, development and deployment across integrated 

topics. For example, ARPA-E plays a unique role in the Department’s broader research and development portfolio, focusing on transformational energy technologies 

that are too early for other DOE applied R&D programs. The Office of Science focuses on basic research with the goal of providing scientific understanding to accelerate solutions to energy challenges. Although I am not yet at the Department, I 

understand ARPA-E coordinates closely across the Department’s applied energy programs and the Office of Science. If confirmed, I will continue that work to ensure 

that ARPA-E’s efforts are coordinated with all relevant programs across the Department. 

Question 5. Should you be confirmed, how would you prioritize the work of ARPAE in an increasingly budget constrained environment? 

Answer. As the nominee for Director of ARPA-E, I believe funding the work of 

ARPA-E should be a high priority. If confirmed, I would continue ARPA-E’s rigorous 

program design process and hands-on-engagement to ensure thoughtful expenditures that leverage funding and deliver value in this environment of limited resources. 

Question 6. Can you please comment on how success is measured at ARPA-E? Is 

it by the number of successful technology deployments, the number of projects 

picked up for further maturation by industry, or other parameters? In your opinion, 

is ARPA-E meeting the success goals that it laid for itself? 

Answer. I believe the success of ARPA-E programs and projects will ultimately 

be measured by impact in the marketplace. However, as the projects ARPA-E funds 

seek to generate transformational energy technologies that do not exist today, it is 

my understanding that ARPA-E looks at various metrics to measure ongoing 

progress towards eventual market adoption. For example, early technical achievements are measured by indicators such as patents and publications, and success is 

also gauged success by the formation of new companies and fostering public and private partnerships to ensure projects continue to move towards the market. 

I am told that, as of March 2013, ARPA-E funding has led to the formation of 

12 new companies and 17 projects have attracted over $450 million in private sector 

funding after ARPA-E’s initial investment of approximately $70 million. Several 

ARPA-E projects have begun demonstration testing with various public and private 

corporations to further develop their technologies. I view this as success, and if confirmed, I look forward to working toward the success of more projects and companies. 

Question 7. Does ARPA-E have the ability to partner with similarly directed foreign governmental entities to get more ‘‘bang for the buck’’ when it comes to research and development? Please explain. 

Answer. It is my understanding that ARPA-E does have the ability to partner 

with foreign governmental entities, however, such an agreement would be expected 

to comply with ARPA-E’s existing intellectual property and domestic manufacturing 

requirements. While I understand that ARPA-E does not currently have any partnerships with foreign governments, if confirmed I look forward to exploring this 

area with great interest. 

RESPONSES OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MANCHIN

Question 1. Arpa-e, the organization you’ve been nominated to lead, has projects 

that look at carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) from coal power plants. It also 

has projects that try to figure out how we can use that carbon dioxide (CO2) to 

make something useful. These areas are extremely important to my state, as well 

as the nation, if we’re serious about improving how we use fossil fuels. Can I get 

a commitment from you that you’ll continue to look for solutions for CCS and CCUS 

(carbon capture, utilization, and storage) if you are confirmed as the Director of 

Arpa-e? 
47 

As a follow up, would you agree that developing these technologies is critical given 

the continued projected use of coal and natural gas, both here in the U.S. and overseas? 

Answer. As part of the Administration’s ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ energy approach, I support funding energy technologies needed to create a more secure and affordable 

American future. ARPA-E’s role in this mission is advancing high-potential, highimpact energy technologies that are too early for private sector investment. I am 

pleased that this has included and may continue to include Carbon Capture and 

Utilization technologies, which complement ARPA-E’s portfolio of investments in 

this technical area. I agree that investment these technologies are critical for use 

of both coal and natural gas resources in the U.S. and globally, and if confirmed 

I look forward to working with you on these important issues. 

Question 2. You understand that solving our energy challenges requires more 

than just understanding the science: it takes working with people in the real world 

to figure out how to develop successful solutions. You said as much in an interview 

a year ago with Energy Quarterly, and that’s a breath of fresh air to hear from a 

nominee. Can you discuss how you’ll establish partnerships with both the private 

sector and national laboratories to make sure we’re developing the right technologies? 

Answer. I believe that partnerships with private industry, academia, national laboratories, and other government agencies are critical for both the development of 

new programs and to help existing projects continue to move towards the market. 

It is my understanding that the concept for any new ARPA-E program is developed 

through engagement with diverse science and technology communities from all sectors, including some that may not have traditionally been involved in the topic area, 

to bridge basic science to early stage technology with improved potential for commercialization. 

In addition, in my view ARPA-E encourages interdisciplinary thinking in applications by recommending that projects use a diverse combination of skills and partners that can approach challenges in new ways. As part of ARPA-E’s technologyto-market program, relationships are facilitated with investors, government agencies, small and large companies, and other organizations that are necessary to move 

awardees to the next stage of their project development. I understand that ARPAE also has MOUs with private companies, governmental entities and non-profit organizations to identify opportunities to test and accelerate the commercialization of 

ARPA-E funded technologies. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you in 

this important area. 

RESPONSES OF JANICE M. SCHNEIDER TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Are you familiar with the ‘‘No More’’ clause contained in the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)? ANILCA transferred 124 million acres of lands in Alaska—a size almost equal to the entire east coast—into federally protected acreage like parks, refuges, monuments and wild and scenic rivers. 

In enacting ANILCA, Congress found that the law ‘‘provides sufficient protection for 

the national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental values on 

public lands in Alaska.and thus Congress believes that the need for future legislation designating new conservation system units, new national conservation areas, or 

new national recreation areas, has been obviated thereby.’’ Additionally, Section 

1326 of ANILCA specifies that there can be no ‘‘future executive branch action 

which withdraws more than 5,000 acres in the aggregate of public lands in the State 

of Alaska.’’ 

a. How do you interpret ANILCA’s ‘‘No More’’ clause? 

b. Given ANILCA’s ‘‘No More’’ clause, what authority did the Administration 

use to reclassify nearly 13 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve— 

Alaska (NPRA) as ‘‘Special Areas,’’ thereby preventing further energy development? 

c. I understand the Administration is also about to unveil a new land management plan for the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that may 

seek additional wilderness designation beyond the 8.5 million acres already designated as wilderness. How does this move square with ANILCA’s ‘‘No More’’ 

clause? 

Answer. Because I am not currently part of the Administration, I cannot address 

the reasons for the specific actions referenced in your question. However, if confirmed, I commit to ensuring that actions taken by the bureaus under the purview 
48 

of the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management are consistent with 

all applicable laws. 

Question 2. The federal government’s conveyance program of land owed to Alaska 

and Alaska Natives is mandated under the over 42-year-old Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA). The BLM has repeatedly proposed to cut the funding and 

personnel for the Alaska Conveyance Program and perhaps more egregiously, BLM 

proposes to take the State of Alaska’s 50-percent share of revenue from oil and natural gas activity in the NPR-A to pay for the land conveyance program and the Legacy Well Cleanup. I believe the Department should fund conveyance and surveying 

closer to the $29 million that was provided in FY 12—without making Alaska foot 

the bill. The Alaska Land Conveyance Program is very important both to the State 

of Alaska and to the Alaska Native Corporations who are eagerly awaiting their 

long promised lands to which they are entitled. 

a. If confirmed, can you commit to me that you will ensure that the Alaska 

Land Conveyance Program receives the necessary funding to complete the conveyances as expeditiously as possible? 

Answer. I understand the importance of completing the Alaska Conveyance work 

and support efforts to complete this work as expeditiously as possible. If confirmed, 

I will be cognizant of the Department’s outstanding commitment to complete the 

Alaska Conveyance work in reviewing program activities and in discussions on the 

budget. 

b. Do you believe that it is proper for the Administration to reduce the funding of a legislatively mandated program, and one which it is 40 years delinquent on fulfilling, while spending funds on non-legislatively mandated programs, like climate change monitoring and adaptation? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the BLM Director and Departmental leaders to develop balanced funding recommendations for the Secretary’s 

consideration. Factored into this balance would be statutory and contractual requirements, mission-directed requirements, investments needed to perform Departmental missions more effectively, and deficit reduction considerations. 

Question 3. The federal government both directly and under contract drilled some 

136 oil and gas and exploratory wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in 

the 1940s and again in the early 1980s. Many of those wells have not been properly 

capped and were instead abandoned. The State of Alaska has been seeking for years 

for Interior to do a better job of cleaning up its messes, just as the government 

would fine private developers who had not properly secured exploratory wells. Earlier this year the Administration proposed to use Alaska’s share of mineral leasing 

revenues to pay to remedy the federal messes—something I found totally unacceptable and unjust. 

a. While we approved $50 million in the recent helium legislation that may 

fund 16 more well cleanups over the next five years, do you believe it is the 

federal government’s responsibility to clean up all remaining wells at its own 

expense—not Alaska’s—in the future? 

b. With the $50 million in funding for well remediation and clean-up in the 

Helium Stewardship Act, can you please provide me an update on the status 

of the planning for well cleanup in 2014? 

c. When will you be able to share with me a written cleanup plan for 2014? 

Which wells will be remediated? 

d. If confirmed, will you make funding for well remediation in the NPRA a 

priority? 

Answer. I believe the federal government has a responsibility to clean up these 

wells. Because I am not currently part of the Administration, I cannot speak to the 

current planning efforts regarding remediation of NPRA Legacy Wells. If confirmed, 

I am committed to working with the BLM Director and others in the Department’s 

leadership to ensure the agency has the resources it needs to complete this important work. 

Question 4. The Federal Government participated in armed field visits during August 22-27, 2013 near the community of Chicken, Alaska. I have conveyed my frustration and the frustration of Alaskans at the manner in which these raids were 

undertaken, which have come to symbolize continued Federal Government overreach in Alaska. Will you commit to working with me to ensure such an overzealous 

law enforcement approach does not occur again? 

Answer. I have not been briefed on the specifics of this operation. If confirmed 

I will make every effort to ensure the BLM enforcement actions are done in a professional manner and in full compliance with all applicable laws. 
49 

Question 5. Do you believe energy production on federal lands, including oil and 

gas, should be increased in principle? If so, what are steps you will take to ensure 

this happens? 

Answer. I am committed to the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy. If confirmed, I will work with the directors of the bureaus under my purview, 

including the Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, to ensure permitting and review processes are efficient and effective. 

Question 6. Do you believe that federal lands offshore should, with deference to 

environmental safeguards, as well as the rights and interests of the states, be developed in an ‘‘expeditious and orderly’’ manner, as stated by the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act? Please explain. 

Answer. Offshore energy resources are important parts of the United States’ domestic energy production portfolio. As I noted at my confirmation hearing, I believe 

it is important to engage with states in this regard. If confirmed, I will support the 

Department’s programs to promote the safe, responsible and efficient development 

of the Nation’s offshore conventional and renewable energy resources and will ensure states have opportunities to provide input on these decisions. 

Question 7. As you know, seismic studies have not been conducted in the Atlantic 

OCS for several decades now. It is my understanding that planning for the 2017- 

2022 period will begin next year, even as the environmental impact statement for 

seismic activity has been delayed. Can you commit to including Atlantic areas in 

the five year plan? 

Answer. As I indicated at my confirmation hearing, if confirmed, I will be committed to expeditiously providing the Secretary with the information necessary to 

inform a decision regarding the potential inclusion of the Mid and South Atlantic 

Planning Areas for leasing in the 2017-2022 Five Year Program. 

Question 8. Does present-day technology allow Americans to develop energy resources on federal lands while protecting the environment? Do we have sufficient 

knowledge about hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and other unconventional 

technologies to use them for production in an environmentally-safe manner? 

Answer. I understand that hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling methods 

can be used safely and effectively if best management practices are utilized. If confirmed, I will make it a priority for the BLM to remain current with emerging technologies and best practices to ensure safe and responsible development of oil and 

gas on federal lands. 

Question 9. As you know, there is an effort underway to build a pipeline to transport gas from Alaska’s North Slope to southern Alaska for LNG export. When the 

line’s commercial considerations are reached, it is going to require timely approval 

of a host of environmental and land use permits to allow the $45 to $60 billion 

project to proceed. Any delays in federal permitting will add substantially to the 

project’s costs. As Assistant Secretary will the Department be willing and able to 

allocate resources to have sufficient staff available to consider and process required 

permits in an expedited manner so that a pipeline can be built? 

Answer. I recognize the importance of oil and gas resources to the State of Alaska. 

If confirmed, I plan to work with the Department’s bureaus and partners to identify 

where the Department’s budget and staff resources can most effectively be used to 

keep pace with demand for energy exploration and development. 

Question 10. Your official biography from Latham & Watkins notes that you have 

‘‘extensive experience’’ in a number of areas, including hydropower project licensing. 

Can you tell us about your experience in that area? Please describe your views on 

hydropower more generally. 

Answer. I have worked extensively on issues related to operation of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System located in the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, I have 

worked on many Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing proceedings under Part I of the Federal Power Act, counseling both federal and private 

industry clients, including in proceedings before the FERC and in the federal courts 

of appeal. Hydropower is an important part of this Nation’s energy mix. 

Question 11. I understand that in your work as a partner at Latham & Watkins, 

one of your main roles was to help companies resolve difficulties or delays that arose 

when seeking project approval from various government agencies. 

a. Would you agree that winning approval from the government for an energy 

project can be a laborious, difficult endeavor for private companies? 
50 

b. Based on your experiences in this area, have you identified any reforms 

that could make project development easier, or at least less cumbersome than 

it currently is? 

Answer. I am aware that the Administration has put in place a number of important reforms to improve and help expedite the permitting process for infrastructure 

and energy projects generally. These include the Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and 

Procedures (2013), Executive Order 13604 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects) (2012), and the Presidential Memorandum on Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review (2011). These efforts created a Federal 

Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement Steering Committee, established the Federal Infrastructure Projects Dashboard, improved collaboration 

through information technology tools, and assisted in developing government-wide 

best practices. 

If I am confirmed, I will prioritize additional permit process improvements to help 

make project development more efficient and more transparent, while ensuring that 

projects are developed in an environmentally responsible way. I agree that improving permit efficiencies across the board is very important for this Nation’s economic 

and energy security. 

Question 12. Please describe how you see the relationship between the State Department’s international activities and the agencies that would fall under your domain at the Department of the Interior. 

Answer. Because I am not currently part of the Administration, I cannot speak 

to the specific existing relationships between the international activities of the Department’s bureaus and State Department. However, I am aware that there is collaboration with relevant agencies, such as the State Department, when, for example, 

development may take place in areas that implicate foreign policy interests. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the interactions between the Department and its bureaus and the State Department. 

Question 13. Many of us noted, as you likely did, some trade press coverage of 

your nomination. One of the headlines was, ‘‘Industry sour on Obama pick for minerals post.’’ The general concerns that were expressed seem to hint at a lack of relevant experience. If confirmed, you will be in charge of four agencies with a combined budget in excess of $1.5 billion. Is there anything you’d like to say to set those 

of us on this Committee—and those who you will be regulating, if confirmed—at 

greater ease about your qualifications for the job? 

Answer. I have over 20 years of experience working in natural resource, environmental, and American Indian law with the Department of the Interior and other 

federal and state agencies and American Indian tribes. For the past 12 years, I represented industry and the regulated community interfacing with the federal government, successfully and efficiently navigating the federal review process, securing 

large-scale energy and other infrastructure project approvals, and, when necessary, 

successfully defending those approvals in federal district and appellate courts. 

I have broad-ranging, on-the-ground experience getting projects permitted across 

the West. Among other issues, I have personally worked on coal projects across the 

country; oil and gas projects, including in the Bakken formation; wind, solar and 

geothermal projects in West Virginia, Hawai’i, Washington, California and Nevada, 

respectively; liquified natural gas development in Louisiana; hardrock and leaseable 

mineral development in Oregon, Idaho and Minnesota, respectively; refinery issues 

in Alaska; hydropower projects across the Pacific Northwest and in California; and 

extensive high-voltage transmission and pipeline work on public and private lands. 

I understand the need for efficiency and predictability for both project developers 

and financial institutions, the need to work in an environmentally responsible manner, respecting state and tribal perspectives, and to balance conservation with energy needs. 

I currently serve as the Local Department Chair for the Environment, Land and 

Resources Department at the law firm at which I am currently employed, as a Global Co-Chair of the Energy and Infrastructure Project Siting and Defense Practice, 

and on the firm’s Knowledge Management Committee. I also served four years on 

the firm’s Finance Committee. In addition to being topical, these positions have provided me with significant management experience. 

Question 14. If you are confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management, you will be fortunate to have Tommy Beaudreau, who currently 

holds the job in an Acting capacity, still within the Department. Do you have any 

plans to coordinate with him on the issues you will face, particularly after he is con-
51 

firmed to his new position as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and 

Budget? 

Answer. If confirmed, I intend to build on Mr. Beaudreau’s leadership. I plan to 

work collaboratively and cooperatively with him on policy issues, including those in 

Alaska and the Arctic, if I am confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Lands and 

Minerals Management. 

Question 15. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. One of the core missions 

of the OCS Governors Coalition is to promote a constructive dialogue with federal 

policy makers on decisions affecting offshore development. Unfortunately, over the 

past few years, the governors have been concerned with the lack of communication 

between state and federal officials, particularly in regard to the development of offshore leasing plans. Of note, President Obama canceled Lease Sale 220 off Virginia 

in December 2010 without sufficient consultation with the Commonwealth of Virginia. The bipartisan leadership in Virginia has clearly indicated multiple times 

that it supports a leasing program in the Atlantic, and Governor McDonnell has addressed the Administration’s concerns about safety and spill containment infrastructure and coordination with military operations in the area. 

Similarly, prior to release of the proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil and 

Natural Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017, the State of Alaska was not consulted 

on the Department of the Interior’s decision to postpone lease sales off Alaska one 

year from the initial timeframe. 

a. Understanding the multiple stakeholder conversations that go into planning a leasing program, can you discuss the legal and otherwise appropriate 

role for the input of state governments? 

b. What actions would you take to ensure sufficient and ongoing input from 

the states? 

Answer. As I indicated at my confirmation hearing, I believe that consultation 

and coordination with coastal states, including Alaska, is an important part of the 

OCS Five Year Program process. I understand that the statutory responsibility for 

coordinating and consulting with the state governments during development of a 

Five Year Program is described in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. If confirmed, I look forward to having an active dialogue with coastal states regarding offshore oil and gas leasing and the OCS Five Year Program. I am committed to ensuring that the views of coastal states inform, along with other relevant factors, the 

decision-making process with respect to offshore oil and gas leasing. 

Question 16. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. A second priority for the 

OCS Governors Coalition is the pace of permitting for OCS oil and natural gas operators. Following the temporary deepwater-drilling moratorium in 2010, operators experienced significant delays in plan and permitting approval. Even though operators 

in the Gulf of Mexico are starting to return to pre-Macondo operation levels, several 

concerns with the inefficient and inconsistent regulatory regime for offshore operators remain. What measures can be taken by the Department of the Interior to ensure a more timely and consistent regulatory framework for all operators without 

sacrificing environmental safety? 

Answer. I am committed to the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy. I appreciate that the pace of permitting and the ability of companies to pursue 

development of their Outer Continental Shelf leases is important to you and your 

constituents. If confirmed, I will look forward to working with the Bureau of Safety 

and Environmental Enforcement and Director Salerno to ensure continued engagement with industry and all stakeholders to promote the safe and environmentally 

responsible development of our Nation’s energy resources on the OCS, as well as 

to provide clarity and certainty for operators seeking to develop those resources. Let 

me also underscore my commitment to efficiency within the permitting process. It 

is my understanding that the processing time for permits has been reduced significantly, and I pledge to seek continual improvement in this important process. 

Question 17. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. In a previous meeting 

of the governors, we each agreed that revenue-sharing of royalties generated from 

offshore leasing and energy production should be shared equally with all coastal 

states that produce energy—either traditional or renewable—off their respective 

shores. These revenues are critical for funding state coastal restoration and conservation efforts as well as other state programs. While Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (all OCS Governor member states) benefit from revenue-sharing that is capped and can only be used for limited purposes, Alaska and states 

along the Atlantic coast are not eligible for revenue sharing. Do you believe there 

should be consistency on revenue sharing for all coastal states? 
52 

Answer. I know this is an issue that is important to you, and it is complex. I am 

aware that the Administration has outlined its position on this issue at a July 23, 

2013 hearing before the Committee. If I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary I commit to working with the Committee, states, and other stakeholders to find what 

common ground may exist on this issue. 

Question 18. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. Virginia Governor 

McDonnell, North Carolina Governor McCrory, and South Carolina Governor 

Haley—all of whom are members of the Coalition—support the opening of the Atlantic for oil and natural gas exploration. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

is working on a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for geological and geophysical activity in the Atlantic in order to allow seismic surveyors to 

uncover the true potential of the resources in that region. The PEIS review has already lasted nearly four years and the Coalition has continuing concerns that further delays could ultimately forestall Atlantic leasing. At the same time, we are 

pleased that Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Tommy 

Beaudreau recently acknowledged that the Interior Department can proceed with 

including Atlantic leasing in the next five year plan, even if new seismic data has 

not yet been collected. Can you please discuss your thoughts on including additional 

leasing opportunities in the Department’s 2017-2022 leasing plan? 

Answer. I believe that when developing the next Five Year Program, the Department should continue to strike an appropriate balance in promoting the responsible 

development of domestic offshore oil and gas resources. This includes thorough consideration of whether areas not currently available for leasing should be made available in the next Five Year Program. 

Question 19. [on behalf of the OCS Governors Coalition]. A recent report released 

by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recommends that lease 

terms in the Arctic OCS be lengthened to ensure that operators have sufficient time 

to recoup the large capital investment required to extract resources in this region. 

Currently, lease terms are 10 years in the Arctic. Greenland allows for 16 year extensions of leases and Canada permits companies to retain leases indefinitely if oil 

or gas is found within the initial nine year lease timeframe. The report suggests 

that a combination of the Greenland and Canadian lease frameworks would be appropriate in the American Arctic. 

Could you please discuss your thoughts on the possibility of expanding the lease 

timeframe with respect to the Arctic OCS to ensure that operators are able to operate efficiently in a frontier region? 

Answer. I believe that offshore leasing and lease terms should be tailored to the 

conditions and challenges of a particular region, including frontier areas such as the 

Alaskan Arctic. If confirmed, I will explore the appropriate leasing and lease terms 

that should apply in these areas. 

RESPONSES OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI (FOR

SENATOR HATCH) 

Question 20. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary Salazar the 

following question: 

‘‘16. Do you agree that the Department’s authority to establish new Wilderness Study Areas under Section 603 of FLPMA expired no later than October 21, 1993?’’ 

Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009: 

‘‘Answer: Yes. Section 603 of FLPMA required the Secretary to conduct 

a review of roadless areas of public lands of at least five thousand acres 

and report his recommendations about the suitability or unsuitability of 

each area for preservation as wilderness to the President, who in turn was 

to make recommendations to Congress. Areas deemed suitable for preservation as wilderness through that process are called Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSAs). Section 603 specified that the Secretary’s review and recommendations were to occur within fifteen years of FLPMA’s enactment in 1976. The 

President then had two yeas to advise Congress of his recommendations for 

areas to be designated as wilderness. This means that all of the requirements of Section 603 were to be completed seventeen years after FLPMA’s 

enactment, or by October 21, 1993, at which time the authority expired. We 

do not expect our position on this question to change.’’ 

Is this still your position? 
53 

Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to looking into this matter 

in more detail and would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you. 

Question 21. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary Salazar the 

following question: 

‘‘17. Do you agree that the Department currently has no authority to establish new WSAs (post-603 WSAs) under any provision of federal law, such 

as the Wilderness Act of Section 202 of FLPMA?’’ 

Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009: 

‘‘Answer: Yes. Section 603 created a unique multi-step process that resulted in the establishment of WSAs and imposed certain management requirements on WSAs. No other provision of federal law creates a similar 

process or authorizes the creation of WSAs. Section 603 required the Secretary over a 15 year period to determine whether certain lands were suitable for preservation as wilderness and to report those findings to the 

President. The lands so reported are known as WSAs. The President was 

then required within two years to recommend to Congress which of these 

lands should be designated as wilderness. Pending action by Congress either designating the WSAs lands as wilderness or releasing them from 

their WSA status, the Secretary is required by section 603 to manage WSA 

lands so as not to impair their suitability for designation as wilderness. 

It should be noted, however, that the fact the Department can no longer 

establish WSAs does not impair the BLM’s ability to protect areas with wilderness characteristics through FLPMA’s land use planning process under 

Section 202 of FLPMA. In their 2005 Settlement Agreement, both BLM and 

Utah acknowledged that BLM has the discretion under Section 202 to manage lands to protect their wilderness characteristics, consistent with the 

multiple-use and sustained yield standard in FLPMA. We do not expect our 

position on this question to change.’’ 

Is this still your position? 

Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to looking into this matter 

in more detail and would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you. 

Question 22. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary Salazar the 

following question: 

‘‘18. Do you agree that the Department has not had the authority to create any new WSAs since the expiration of FLPMA Section 603 on October 

21, 1993?’’ 

Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009: 

‘‘Answer: Yes. See answers to Questions 16 and 17.’’ 

Is this still your position? 

Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to looking into this matter 

in more detail and would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you. 

Question 23. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary Salazar the 

following question: 

‘‘19. Do you agree with federal Judge Dee Benson that the settlement 

agreement between the state of Utah and the United States is consistent 

with FLPMA?’’ 

Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009: 

‘‘Answer: Yes. We believe that the settlement agreement and Judge Benson’s opinion in Utah v. Norton are consistent with FLPMA. As Judge Benson concluded, the settlement agreement recognizes that the plain language 

of FLPMA provides for the establishment and management of WSAs exclusively under Section 603, which by its own terms expired no later than October 21, 1993. In addition, Judge Benson noted that under the settlement 

agreement, both BLM and Utah acknowledged that BLM’s authority under 

section 202 of FLPMA remains intact and provides authority to use the 

land use planning process to protect areas with wilderness characteristics, 

consistent wih the guiding multiple-use and sustained-yield policy of 

FLPMA. We do not expect our position on this question to change.’’ 

Is this still your position? 
54 

Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to looking into this matter 

in more detail and would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you. 

Question 24. On April 30, 2009 Senator Bob Bennett asked Secretary Salazar the 

following question: 

‘‘20. Does the BLM have authority to apply the non-impairment standard, 

as enumerated in the Interim Management Plan for wilderness study areas, 

to lands that are not designated as WSAs under Section 603?’’ 

Senator Bennett received the following answer on May 20, 2009: 

‘‘Answer. No. Because the Department’s authority to establish WSAs, 

which are required to be managed under the non-impairment standard, expired no later than October 21, 1993, the BLM does not have authority to 

apply the no-impairment standard to non-WSAs. However, as explained in 

the other answers, this does not prevent the BLM from managing nonWSAs with wilderness characteristics in a way that protects these characteristics. As Utah acknowledged in the 2005 Settlement Agreement, 

FLPMA Section 202 provides BLM with the discretion to manage lands to 

protect their wilderness characteristics.’’ We do not expect our position on 

this question to change.’’ 

Is this still your position? 

Answer. I am not currently at the Department and therefore cannot speak on behalf of the Department. However, if confirmed, I commit to looking into this matter 

in more detail and would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you. 

Question 25. On May 24, 2012, you published a Latham & Watkins Client Alert 

Commentary on BLM’s pending hydraulic fracturing rule. In the commentary, you 

discussed the impact that BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule would have on Indian 

tribes. You discussed how BLM’s rule may put Indian lands at a competitive disadvantage with state and private lands. You wrote: 

‘‘Indeed, where reservations are ‘checkerboarded,’ oil and gas operators 

would be able. . .to move just a few feet away onto privately held or state 

lands where none of the new regulations would apply, potentially depriving 

tribes of critical sources of revenue.’’ 

BLM’s rule will also put Federal public lands at a competitive disadvantage, and 

deprive public land states, like Wyoming, of critical sources of revenue. 

If confirmed, you would oversee BLM. What steps would you take to ensure that 

BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule will not put Federal public lands and Indian lands 

at a competitive disadvantage with state and private lands? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the BLM to make certain that it continues 

to take appropriate steps to ensure that hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian 

lands is conducted in a manner that is safe, environmentally responsible, and economically viable for industry. In addition, I understand that the BLM is taking 

steps to improve the processing of applications for drilling permits through automation and other process improvements and I will work with states and tribes to eliminate redundancies and maximize flexibility where possible, and work to ensure that 

these steps will help federal and Indian lands remain attractive for oil and gas producers. 

Question 26. The BLM has a multiple use mission as set forth in the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act to manage public land resources for a variety of 

uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting. 

If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure BLM meets this statutory 

multiple use mandate? 

Answer. I strongly support the Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s multiple use mandate to sustainably manage the public lands through a combination 

of balanced and diverse resource uses for the benefit of present and future generations. I support the efforts of the Department of the Interior and the BLM to implement FLPMA and, if confirmed, I will apply my varied career experiences and work 

collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders and partners to ensure multiple-use 

and sustained yield management on the public lands. 

Question 27. If confirmed, how would you strive to improve the relationship between the agency and stakeholders who hold grazing permits on public lands? 

Answer. I am committed to bringing people together to find common ground and 

solutions to difficult issues. If confirmed, I will work with stakeholders, including 

ranchers that hold grazing permits, to ensure that public lands are managed for 

multiple uses and sustained yield, including livestock grazing, where appropriate. 
55 

Question 28. The Department of the Interior (DOI) is running out of options to 

deal with excessive wild horses on BLM land and feral horses in Indian Country. 

The long-and short-term holding facilities are full, fertility control is too extensive 

and ineffective, and horses are overgrazing riparian areas and destroying wildlife 

habitat. 

What BLM administrative or policy changes do you believe would improve the implementation of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act to reduce cost and improve compliance with Appropriate Management Levels in the west to avoid severe overgrazing? 

Answer. I am aware that the Wild Horse and Burro program at the BLM poses 

unique and difficult challenges. I understand the BLM is continuing to develop and 

implement policy changes, consistent with the recommendations in a recently issued 

National Academy of Sciences report and input from the Wild Horses and Burros 

Advisory Board, and is working to find ways to make the program sustainable within the existing statutory framework. If confirmed, I would look forward to working 

with you to better understand the issues and complexities surrounding the program. 

Question 29. What role do you believe state and local governments play in defining the appropriate multiple use and sustained yield standard within their jurisdictions? 

Answer. I recognize the importance of engaging with state and local governments 

and value their input in the land use planning and National Environmental Policy 

Act processes, as it promotes more sustainable outcomes. FLPMA directs the BLM 

in developing land use plans to coordinate its inventory, planning, and management 

activities with its state and local government partners. If confirmed, I will work 

with the BLM Director to ensure that state, tribal, and local governments continue 

their important role in the Department’s efforts to balance environmentally responsible development with appropriate conservation measures and recreation activities. 

Question 30. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said that his 

‘‘administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.’’ If confirmed, what would you do to speed up oil and gas permitting on Federal public lands? 

Please address whether you would: (1) expedite the leasing process; (2) expand the 

use of categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 

(3) eliminate the requirement for Master Leasing Plans; and (4) deploy ‘‘strike 

teams,’’ such as those used in North Dakota, to reduce permitting backlogs. 

Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM continues its efforts to expedite 

its permitting processes. I understand that the BLM has made improvements in its 

review of drilling permits and is exploring ways to use technology to further improve the process. I also understand that by identifying and addressing possible 

land-use conflicts early in the leasing process, the BLM has seen a steady decline 

in the percentage of BLM lease parcels protested. If confirmed, I will support the 

BLM’s work in this area, and will work to further improve permit efficiencies. 

Question 31. Over the last few years, DOI has expedited environmental impact 

statements under NEPA for a number of large scale renewable energy projects on 

Federal public lands. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to expedite 

environmental impact statements for large scale coal, oil and gas, and uranium 

projects on Federal public lands? 

Answer. I both value and understand the necessity for providing certainty when 

it comes to managing our Nation’s public lands. I support the BLM’s ongoing efforts 

to ensure that environmental reviews are conducted in an efficient manner, while 

also adhering to important process requirements, including opportunities for public 

participation, that result in well-reasoned and sustainable resource management decisions. If confirmed, I will work within the parameters set by NEPA to address the 

need for domestic production of the energy resources needed to power our economy. 

In addition to involving cooperating agencies during this process, I will fully engage 

elected officials, industry, and all of the many and varied stakeholders of the public 

lands. 

RESPONSES OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 32. The President considers you qualified for this position due, at least 

in part, to your extensive previous experience at the Department of the Interior, 

which largely took place during the Clinton Administration. During the Clinton Administration, 21 national monuments were either created or expanded, including 

during the time you were at the department and serving as counselor to the Deputy 

Secretary. As you know, these designations were of great concern to western states 

and communities, including the manner in which they were created. 
56 

During your tenure at the Department of the Interior, did you attend or have involvement of any kind in any meetings or participate in discussions where the designation or management of any national monuments were considered or discussed? 

Did you review and/or approve or surname any documents or other materials of any 

kind pertaining to any designations or management of any national monuments? If 

so, please describe your role further, including any specific national monument designations in which you attended meetings or in which you participated in discussions. 

Answer. During my tenure at the Department of the Interior, I was not involved 

in the decisions to designate or manage any of the 21 national monuments designated or expanded during the Clinton Administration. Similarly, during my tenure 

at the Department I did not review, approve, or surname any documents or other 

materials pertaining to any of the 21 national monuments designated or expanded 

during the Clinton Administration. 

Question 33. Even if you were not personally involved in the designation of national monuments during the Clinton administration, you are of course aware of the 

controversial nature of some of those designations. Is it your opinion that the process of designating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was contrary 

to general principles of cooperation, openness, and transparency, principles to which 

Secretary Jewell and yourself have committed to as nominees before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee? 

Answer. I was not involved in the designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument during the Clinton Administration. I believe that any decisions 

regarding the responsible use of the Antiquities Act by the President need to be 

fully informed by public engagement and local stakeholder outreach. I support 

President Obama’s and Secretary Jewell’s ‘‘bottom up’’ approach to any use of the 

Antiquities Act by the President and with the perspective that these decisions are 

best made with broad local support. I do not view this as an ‘‘either-or’’ proposition. 

If confirmed, I am also committed to working with Members of Congress to legislatively protect important areas. 

RESPONSE OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR RISCH

Question 34. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to note that the United States 

is becoming increasingly reliant upon imports for key metals and minerals critical 

to US manufacturing and economic growth. The United States, with a 7-10 year 

timeframe, is now considered one of the worst nations in terms of the time it takes 

to obtain permits to mine. Do you believe the Department of the Interior should look 

at this situation and to make changes to make permitting more timely and efficient, 

especially for the Bureau of Land Management which is responsible for providing 

authorizations and permits for developing our vast mineral resources on federal 

lands? 

Answer. As I mentioned at my confirmation hearing, I share the Committee’s concerns regarding our dependence on foreign sources of critical minerals. I understand 

that mining supports many jobs and important products. I have worked on many 

mining projects, including the recent successful permitting of a new phosphate mine 

in southeastern Idaho on BLM lands, a project that was not challenged before the 

Interior Board of Land Appeals or in federal court. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that mining permits are processed in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner, consistent with legal requirements and best management practices. 

RESPONSES OF ELLEN D. WILLIAMS TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LANDRIEU

Question 35. What plans do you have to further streamline the process of offshore 

permitting, which while vastly improved compared to the period immediately following the moratorium, still lags behind where it should be? 

Answer. I am committed to the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy. I appreciate that the pace of permitting and the ability of companies to pursue 

development of their Outer Continental Shelf leases is important to you and your 

constituents. If confirmed, I will look forward to working with both the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to ensure continued engagement with industry and all stakeholders to promote the safe and environmentally responsible development of our Nation’s energy 

resources on the OCS, as well as to provide clarity and certainty for operators seeking to develop those resources. Let me also underscore my commitment to efficiency 

within the permitting process. It is my understanding that the processing time for 

permits has been reduced significantly, and I pledge to make this a priority and 

seek continual improvement in this important process. 
57 

Question 36. What is your opinion on the possibility of future lease sales in the 

Atlantic? Will you support states who express interest in hosting offshore production 

in holding these lease sales? 

Answer. I believe that when developing the next Five Year Program, the Department should continue to strike an appropriate balance in promoting the responsible 

development of domestic offshore oil and gas resources. This includes thorough consideration of whether areas not currently available for leasing should be made available in the next Five Year Program. I am committed to ensuring that the views of 

coastal states, along with other relevant factors, inform the decision-making process 

with respect to offshore oil and gas leasing. 

Question 37. Will you work with me and my staff to move forward with the issue 

of revenue sharing to coastal states, to ensure that these states remain able to support offshore oil and gas production? 

Answer. If I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary I will commit to working with 

you, your staff, the Committee, states, and other stakeholders to find what common 

ground may exist on this issue. 

RESPONSE OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. In June the National Academy of Sciences released findings and recommendations on improving the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Management Program. In response to the report, you replied, ‘‘[t]he BLM looks forward to reviewing 

the report in detail and building on the report’s findings and recommendations. . 

. .’’ Can you please explain any steps the Agency has taken in light of the report, 

and outline a schedule for me of any changes the Agency may take going forward? 

Answer. The BLM is currently evaluating the Wild Horse and Burro program in 

light of the recent National Academies of Sciences report and is adopting many of 

the recommendations outlined in the study. The BLM continues to make reforms 

to the Wild Horse and Burro program to ensure humane care, achieve financial sustainability, and promote ecological balance on the range. As part of the BLM’s effort 

to limit population growth, the Bureau is working with the scientific and veterinary 

communities to develop longer-lasting population control tools. In 2014, the BLM intends to support several pilot efforts to develop and evaluate potential tools, including more effective immunocontraceptives. All pilot efforts supported by the BLM will 

be peer reviewed by a group of well-qualified scientists. In addition to facilitating 

the development of more effective population growth suppression tools, the BLM 

plans to implement improved population survey methods and to review its policy for 

establishing and adjusting Appropriate Management Levels. The BLM is also evaluating several options to reduce the numbers of animals in off-range holding facilities, including reforming the adoption program, partnering with new Federal, State, 

and non-profit partners to find good homes for animals, and exploring options for 

lower-cost off-range holding facilities. Each of these efforts will be grounded in the 

best available science and incorporate the input of interested stakeholders. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to deal with the unique challenges 

posed by management of wild horses and burros on public rangelands. 

RESPONSES OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 2. Are you familiar with the ‘‘No More’’ clause contained in the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)? ANILCA transferred 124 million acres of lands in Alaska—a size almost equal to the entire east coast—into federally protected acreage like parks, refuges, monuments and wild and scenic rivers. 

In enacting ANILCA, Congress found that the law ‘‘provides sufficient protection for 

the national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental values on 

public lands in Alaska. and thus Congress believes that the need for future legislation designating new conservation system units, new national conservation areas, or 

new national recreation areas, has been obviated thereby.’’ Additionally, Section 

1326 of ANILCA specifies that there can be no ‘‘future executive branch action 

which withdraws more than 5,000 acres in the aggregate of public lands in the State 

of Alaska.’’ 

a. How do you interpret ANILCA’s ‘‘No More’’ clause? 

Answer. I understand that ANILCA’s section 1326 prohibits the Secretary of the 

Interior from studying federal lands in Alaska for the single purpose of considering 

the establishment of a new conservation system unit or for related or similar purposes, and that it requires Congressional approval of a joint resolution for any withdrawal exceeding 5000 acres. 
58 

b. Given ANILCA’s ‘‘No More’’ clause, what authority did the Administration 

use to reclassify nearly 13 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve— 

Alaska (NPRA) as ‘‘Special Areas,’’ thereby preventing further energy development? 

Answer. Special Areas are authorized by section 104(b) of the Naval Petroleum 

Reserves Production Act, which requires the BLM, consistent with providing for exploration of the NPRA, to assure maximum protection of the surface values of areas 

having significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife or historical or scenic 

value. The BLM’s regulations call these areas ‘‘Special Areas.’’ The Special Areas 

expanded and designated by the NPRA Integrated Activity Plan, finalized in February 2013, are consistent with this direction. I understand that ANILCA section 

1326 is not implicated here because Special Areas are not ‘‘conservation system 

units’’ and have not been withdrawn. 

c. I understand the Administration is also about to unveil a new land management plan for the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that may 

seek additional wilderness designation beyond the 8.5 million acres already designated as wilderness. How does this move square with ANILCA’s ‘‘No More’’ 

clause? 

Answer. I have not been involved in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s planning effort. 

d. If confirmed as BLM Director, you will be responsible for 87 million acres 

of public land just in Alaska alone. How will you balance Alaska’s need for economic development with the Department’s conservation efforts? 

Answer. Both the Department of the Interior and the BLM are committed to balancing the nation’s need for economic development with the Department’s conservation efforts. If confirmed, I will continue to work with you and interested stakeholders to find the appropriate balance between development and conservation. The 

BLM’s plan for the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska (NPRA), which covers 

nearly 23 million acres of Alaska’s North Slope, provides a useful recent illustration. 

The plan authorizes access to nearly three-quarters of the area’s estimated oil resources while also protecting world-class caribou herds, migratory bird habitat, uplands, and sensitive coastal resources that are central to the subsistence culture of 

Alaska Natives. This approach was developed through broad collaboration. If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM continues to strike an appropriate balance 

among the many potential uses of our nation’s public lands and resources. 

Question 3. The federal government’s conveyance program of land owed to Alaska 

and Alaska Natives is mandated under the over 42-year-old Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA). The BLM has repeatedly proposed to cut the funding and 

personnel for the Alaska Conveyance Program and perhaps more egregiously, BLM 

proposes to take the State of Alaska’s 50-percent share of revenue from oil and natural gas activity in the NPR-A to pay for the land conveyance program and the Legacy Well Cleanup. I believe BLM should fund conveyance and surveying closer to 

the $29 million that BLM provided in FY 12—without making Alaska foot the bill. 

The Alaska Land Conveyance Program is very important both to the State of Alaska 

and to the Alaska Native Corporations who are eagerly awaiting their long promised 

lands to which they are entitled. 

a. If confirmed, can you commit to me that you will ensure that the Alaska 

Land Conveyance Program receives the necessary funding to complete the conveyances as expeditiously as possible? 

b. Do you believe that it is proper for the BLM to reduce the funding of a 

legislatively mandated program, and one which it is 40 years delinquent on fulfilling, while spending funds on non-legislatively mandated programs, like climate change monitoring and adaptation? 

Answer. I am aware of the importance of completing the Alaska Conveyance work 

and of the BLM’s obligations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and 

Alaska Statehood Act. The BLM recently developed an innovative approach to surveying that will substantially reduce costs, increase the speed of surveys, and provide a high-quality product. I fully support efforts to complete this work more quickly and to find ways to do so within the constrained budget environment. If confirmed, I will work closely with my colleagues in the Department to develop balanced funding recommendations for the Secretary’s consideration and presentation 

to the President. 

Question 4. As you may know, the formation of the Lake Clark National Park in 

Alaska during the Carter Administration forced Cook Inlet Region Inc. and its vil-
59 

lages to forfeit certain of their original highest priority land selections within lands 

that became the Park—lands which were promised to them under the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). For the past 30 years, the Department of the Interior has been on notice that Cook Inlet Region’s ANSCA entitlement would be under 

conveyed even after the completion of the 12(a) and 12(b) transfers to the CIRI villages. While the villages have now received title to their respective 12(a) and 12(b) 

lands, approximately 43,000 acres of ANCSA entitlement lands are still due to the 

Cook Inlet Region. On October 22, 2013, the Alaskan delegation sent a letter to Secretary Jewell inquiring as to what federal lands in Alaska could satisfy CIRI’s 

ANCSA land entitlement and who in the Department should CIRI and the delegation work with to expedite a conclusion of CIRI’s land selection process. 

a. When will we receive a response to our delegation letter? 

b. Can I get your assurances that you will work with me, the delegation and 

CIRI to remedy the current shortfall in CIRI’s entitlement in an expeditious 

fashion? 

Answer. I understand a response to the delegation’s letter is being finalized and 

will be delivered shortly. Because of land ownership patterns in the Cook Inlet area, 

prior legislation specific to CIRI’s land selections, previous memoranda of understanding between CIRI and the Department, and other issues, conveyance of lands 

to fulfill CIRI’s land entitlement is unique and complex. I am fully committed to 

seeking the conveyance of CIRI’s full entitlement in the most expeditious manner, 

and will be working closely with you, the delegation, and CIRI toward that end. 

Question 5. The federal government both directly and under contract drilled some 

136 oil and gas and exploratory wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in 

the 1940s and again in the early 1980s. Many of those wells have not been properly 

capped and were instead abandoned. The State of Alaska has been seeking for years 

for Interior to do a better job of cleaning up its messes, just as the government 

would fine private developers who had not properly secured exploratory wells. Earlier this year the Administration proposed to use Alaska’s share of mineral leasing 

revenues to pay to remedy the federal messes—something I found totally unacceptable and unjust. 

a. While we approved $50 million in the recent helium legislation that may 

fund 16 more well cleanups over the next five years, do you believe it is the 

federal government’s responsibility to clean up all remaining wells at its own 

expense—not Alaska’s—in the future. 

Answer. I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to remediate and 

clean-up the legacy NPRA wells, and the Department of the Interior and the BLM 

are committed to that effort. If confirmed, I will work with you and the Committee 

to ensure that BLM has the resources necessary to continue the progress we have 

made in this area and to complete this important effort. The BLM greatly appreciates the recent inclusion of funding in the Helium Stewardship Act that will allow 

the agency to significantly accelerate legacy well clean-up. 

b. With the $50 million in funding for well remediation and clean-up in the 

Helium Stewardship Act, can you please provide me an update on the status 

of the planning for well cleanup in 2014? 

Answer. Using the priorities established in the 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan 

published on our website (http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oillgas/npra/ 

legacywell.html), the BLM is currently finalizing a spending plan addressing the sequence of work to be completed on the Alaska legacy wells with funding from the 

Helium Stewardship Act. The BLM is using existing agreements to move quickly on 

priority work while also preparing new agreements to execute work for 2014 and 

beyond. 

c. When will you be able to share with me a written cleanup plan for 2014? 

Which wells will be remediated? 

Answer. In 2014, the BLM will complete work on the Umiat #3 well and complete 

surface clean-up on three wells on the Simpson Peninsula (Simpson Core Test #26, 

Simpson Core Test #30, and Simpson Core Test #30A). Planning continues for work 

in 2015 and beyond. The BLM will be happy to share with you and your staff the 

spending plan for 2014 once it is finalized and to discuss any other aspect of the 

Alaska legacy well cleanup effort that may be of interest. 

d. If confirmed, will you make funding for well remediation in the NPRA a 

priority for the BLM? 
60 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing working with you and other 

Members of Congress to ensure that the BLM has the resources necessary to complete this important effort. We greatly appreciate the recent inclusion of funding in 

the Helium Stewardship Act that will allow the BLM to accelerate progress on Alaska legacy well cleanup. 

Question 6. As you know, the State of Alaska has long sought the conveyance of 

about 50,000 acres along the Susitna River in Southcentral Alaska under its 1959 

Statehood Act land entitlement. This acreage is now needed for a future reservoir. 

For the record, do you have a firm timeline for when the state will receive title to 

those lands? 

Answer. The BLM shares your interest in resolving the State’s request. During 

this past summer, the BLM met with the Alaska Energy Authority on a regular 

basis to better understand the details of the request. In addition, regular contact 

between the Department of the Interior Regional Solicitor’s Office and its counterpart at the Alaska Energy Authority has helped to keep lines of communication 

open. If confirmed, I will continue to work closely with you and the State on this 

issue. 

Question 7. The Federal Government participated in armed field visits during August 22-27, 2013 near the community of Chicken, Alaska. I have conveyed my frustration and the frustration of Alaskans at the manner in which these raids were 

undertaken, which have come to symbolize continued Federal Government overreach in Alaska. Will you commit to working with me to ensure an overzealous law 

enforcement approach does not occur again? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will make every effort to ensure that BLM enforcement 

actions are done in a professional manner and in full compliance with all applicable 

laws. 

Question 8. On September 19, 2013 the Energy Committee held the first subsistence oversight hearing since the creation of ANILCA and the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA). One area where everyone can agree is that the dual management framework in Alaska is not working for our rural residents. We are taking 

a hard look at the current structure of the Federal Subsistence Board, of which the 

BLM is a member. We would like to add additional subsistence users to the Board, 

in order to have an equal split between Alaska users and the FSB which makes the 

decisions that impact their livelihood. Additionally, we would like to reform the 

Rural Determination Process, which currently reconsiders the rural status of Alaska’s communities every decade, leaving many Alaskans constantly worrying about 

their rural preference or lack thereof. Will you commit to working on this pressing 

reform effort? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you on this effort. In Alaska, 

the Department of the Interior has a special responsibility to ensure that fish and 

wildlife resources are available now and in the future for rural Alaskans who rely 

on subsistence harvest. I understand that the management of subsistence harvests 

of natural resources is complicated. A number of laws provide many mandates related to management; multiple entities, including the BLM, have subsistence management responsibilities; and many different subsistence users are affected by management of harvest. Opportunities to streamline, clarify, and simplify these efforts 

should be pursued. 

RESPONSES OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI (FOR

SENATOR HATCH) 

Question 9. The Red Cliffs Desert Reserve in Washington County, Utah was established in February of 1996 with the issuance of the Washington County Utah 

Habitat Conservation Plan and its permit. Under the terms of the permit and its 

implementation agreement, the Bureau of Land Management assumed the commitment to acquire all private land in that Reserve through exchange or direct purchase from willing sellers of property within the Reserve. 

During the development of the HCP, the BLM and the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) prioritized those parcels that would be essential for the 

‘core’ of the Reserve because that ‘core zone’ constituted the most biologically significant habitat for recovery of the tortoise. 

Currently, the BLM with Washington County and the USFWS are preparing for 

the renewal of the HCP permit which expires in February of 2016. Please provide 

a full accounting of whether the priority ‘‘core zone’’ has been acquired and if not, 

a full explanation as to why the BLM’s obligation under the agreement has not been 

met. Also, please provide a full accounting of all acquisitions of private lands within 

the Red Cliffs Reserve and the priority of those lands under the USFWS criteria 
61 

for conservation of the desert tortoise. Also, has the BLM completed its Reserve 

Management Plan as mandated by Congress within three years of the creation of 

the Red Cliffs NCA in 2009? Will this plan contain a strategy for acquiring priority 

lands within the Reserve? 

Answer. The BLM remains strongly committed to completing acquisition from 

willing sellers of the remaining approximately 1,200 acres of private lands within 

the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve in Washington County. The BLM is taking a threeprong approach to complete these acquisitions in Utah, including purchases with appropriated monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), land exchanges consistent with FLPMA, and the use of land sale revenues provided for 

under section 1978 of Public Law 111-11. 

I understand that the BLM in Utah believes the ‘‘core zone’’ you reference is 

equivalent to Zone 3 from the 1996 EIS Incidental Permit. To date, the BLM has 

acquired nearly 6,400 acres of inholdings, the majority of which have been within 

Zone 3. Nearly $18.7 million of LWCF appropriated funds have been spent to date 

on these acquisitions. 

I also understand that the single largest tract of private property in the Reserve 

was tied up in bankruptcy proceedings from June 2004 to October 2010. Since resolution of judicial proceedings, the BLM has worked to acquire remaining lands as 

funds become available. 

Section 1974 of Public Law 111-11 requires the BLM to develop a comprehensive 

management plan for the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA) designated 

by that law. Public scoping meetings were held in 2010, followed by public input 

and a report in 2011. The BLM expects to release a draft plan for full public review 

and comment in mid-2014. The plan will not specifically address private property 

within the external boundary of the NCA because the scope of the plan is limited 

to lands managed by the Federal government. 

If confirmed, I will continue to direct the BLM in Utah to continue to work diligently and collaboratively to complete these acquisitions and the management plan. 

Question 10. As a state bound by 63% federal lands, economic development surrounding public lands requires close coordination between the BLM and private enterprise. In the past 3 years, the permitting process for right of way across public 

lands has been greatly delayed with excessive Environmental Analysis required. 

Public comment periods have been ordered, ‘‘just to be safe’’, rather than as required 

by regulations. Furthermore, cultural resource inventories have been ordered on 

right of way parcels affecting less than 1/8 of mile of BLM land. How will you work 

with state field and district managers to effect an equitable environmental assessment within existing regulations and discourage the ordering of long EA and EIS 

as a matter of course, rather than evaluating each situation? 

Answer. Prior to approving any action on public lands the BLM must comply with 

the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations. If confirmed, I will work with the BLM planning team to ensure that the appropriate 

level of analysis is completed efficiently and with appropriate public involvement. 

RESPONSE OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 11. As the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, I work closely with the 

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and the 

outstanding work they do with private landowners. Through conservation planning 

and assistance programs, the NRCS helps landowners and agricultural producers 

increase the productivity of the land while improving the health of the soil, water, 

air, plants and animals. NRCS has done tremendous work in the past few years, 

particularly on creative, outside-the-box, solutions to our nation’s pressing natural 

resource issues. 

NRCS and BLM have an existing interagency agreement to address habitat issues 

related to the sage-grouse. As we know, conservation issues aren’t limited to just 

public lands or private lands. If we are really going to tackle big issues, we need 

to coordinate across the agencies to set mutually agreeable priorities, share expertise and talent, and effectively collaborate. 

If confirmed, will you pledge to work collaboratively with Chief Weller at NRCS? 

Can you please describe how your past experiences and future plans for the BLM 

will foster better communication and partnership between the two agencies? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work collaboratively with Chief Weller at 

NRCS. The BLM values its working relationship with the NRCS. For example, the 

BLM continues to collaborate nationally with NRCS on the Landscape Monitoring 

Framework where a subset of the NRCS National Resources Inventory data is collected on public lands. This data collection helps the BLM to better understand resource conditions and trends in priority habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, as well as 
62 

across all western rangelands. The BLM and the NRCS are also working cooperatively to develop new plant materials needed to restore native forbs and grasses in 

degraded sage-grouse habitats. The BLM looks forward to continuing a cooperative 

working relationship with NRCS to complete Ecological Site Descriptions for public 

lands. The BLM is also proud to be a partner in the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) 

that NRCS is leading. If confirmed, I will ensure a continued high level of communication and coordination with NRCS at all levels of the Bureau. 

RESPONSES OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FLAKE

Question 12. If Congress does not act by January 14, 2014, the BLM stands to 

lose a critical land-management tool, stewardship contracting authority. With that 

authority the BLM can enter agreements that, among other things, allow for the 

reduction of hazardous fuels thereby helping to prevent or mitigate the damage from 

catastrophic wildfires. Do you support reauthorization of this authority? 

Answer. I support the reauthorization of this authority and I know the Department has testified in support of stewardship contracting authority on several occasions. Stewardship contracting authority allows the BLM to award and enter into 

contracts to accomplish important forest health and restoration treatments, including hazardous fuels reductions, and to use the value of timber or other forest products removed as an offset against the cost of services received. 

Question 13. Do you support improvements to stewardship authority, such as cancellation ceiling flexibility that would allow the BLM to treat larger areas of land, 

including the type of landscape-level treatments that are proven to more effectively 

reduce wildfire risks? 

Answer. If stewardship contracting authority is reauthorized, the BLM’s future 

strategy for these projects would include increasing their scope and duration. I support the use of stewardship contracting authority to treat both small and large areas 

of land. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to accomplish this shared 

goal, as well as our shared goal of reducing wildland fire risks. 

Question 14. Do you support S. 1300, which would reauthorize and improve stewardship contracting authority for the BLM and the Forest Service? 

Answer. I support the reauthorization of stewardship contracting authority for the 

BLM. I appreciate the work you and your staff have done to address concerns raised 

in the BLM’s testimony on S. 1300. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

you on this issue. 

Question 15. I have heard from some counties and municipalities trying to work 

with the BLM to authorize third-party concessionaires to operate on Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act parcels. It is my understanding that the Solicitor’s Office continues to evaluate this issue in its review of the August 2011 Instructional Memorandum for Third Party Uses on Recreation and Public Purposes Act Patents and 

Leases (2011-162). When does the Solicitor’s Office expect to make a decision about 

the ability for lease and patent holders to enter into agreements with third-party 

concessionaires to operate on Recreation and Public Purposes Act lands? 

Answer. Lands leased or patented to local governments under the Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act, carry with them a number of restrictions on commercial uses. 

It is my understanding that the BLM in Arizona is pursuing a number of possible 

options with Maricopa County and other Arizona local governments to address these 

proposed uses. Among the solutions being discussed are commercial leasing and the 

purchase of reversionary interests of existing R&PP conveyances by these local governments. Additionally, the BLM is currently revising its Recreation Permit and Fee 

Administration Handbook which will provide general guidance on recreational commercial leases on BLM-managed lands. 

Question 16. I understand the City of Tucson and the BLM are continuing discussions regarding the transfer of title for Udall Park to the City of Tucson. I further 

understand this transfer would be intended to fulfill a land exchange with BLM that 

originally commenced in the 1980s, where the City conveyed title to a parcel known 

as the Freeman Road property to the BLM. Can you provide an update on the status of those discussions, including whether the issue can be resolved administratively? 

Answer. The BLM has been in discussions with the City of Tucson regarding the 

Udall Park issue. When Udall Park was transferred to the City of Tucson in 1989, 

the land was transferred under a Recreation & Public Purposes Act (R&PP) patent 

that included a reversionary clause prohibiting certain commercial uses of the property. The BLM in Arizona is in discussions with the City regarding the possible conveyance of that reversionary interest thus enabling the City to allow commercial 

uses such as the installation of a cellular tower. The BLM has the authority to sell 

reversionary interests at fair market value in accordance with uniform appraisal 
63 

standards. The value of that interest for the parcel in question is not yet known. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM continues to explore possible administrative solutions with the City of Tucson. 

Question 17. Maricopa County has been actively trying to work with the BLM to 

renew its lease for the San Tan Mountain Regional Park. Can you provide an update on the status of the BLM’s efforts to confirm the County’s interim authority 

to operate the park, as well as BLM’s efforts to process the County’s Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act patent application? 

Answer. The BLM is engaged in discussions with the Maricopa County Parks and 

Recreation Department to allow the County to continue operating the San Tan 

Mountain Regional Park, which includes public lands managed by the BLM. When 

the Cooperative Recreation Management Agreement with the County expired in 

September 2013, the BLM and the County entered into a ‘‘contribution of services’’ 

agreement. This agreement authorizes the Parks and Recreation Department to 

manage the Park in accordance with the BLM-approved park plan while the BLM 

processes the County’s lease and patent application pursuant to the Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act. The BLM is working cooperatively with the County to complete 

this process as quickly as possible. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

Maricopa County to ensure that it may continue to operate the increasingly popular 

San Tan Mountain Regional Park. 

RESPONSES OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 18. In your questionnaire to the Committee, you state that you held the 

following positions in the Office of U.S. Senator Harry Reid between December 2004 

and January 2011: Legislative Correspondent, Legislative Aide, Legislative Assistant, Director of Nevada Operations, and Senior Policy Advisor. Please provide the 

month(s) and year(s) you served in each of the listed positions. 

Answer. My positions in the Office of U.S. Senator Harry Reid were as follows. 

I worked on public land and natural resource issues in each of these roles. 

Legislative Correspondent January 2003—September 2003 

Legislative Aide October 2003—May 2005 

Legislative Assistant June 2005—March 2006 

Director of Nevada Operations April 2006—March 2008 

Senior Policy Advisor April 2008—January 2011 

Question 19. On January 14, 2013, Edward Shepard, President of the Public Land 

Foundation (PLF) wrote a letter to Secretary Salazar, encouraging him to nominate 

‘‘a career professional natural resource manager’’ as the next BLM Director. 

The PLF is a national non-profit organization which advocates and works for the 

professional management of the nation’s public lands. The PLF’s members are predominately retired employees of BLM. 

Mr. Shepard’s January 14th letter cited section 301(a) of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA) which states that: ‘‘[t]he Director of the Bureau 

shall have a broad background and substantial experience in public land and natural resource management.’’ Mr. Shepard also stated that ‘‘BLM has several current 

and retired professionals that would serve well in the director position and have 

demonstrated their competencies as Federal executives.’’ 

However, on November 21, 2013, Mr. Shepard wrote a letter to members of the 

Committee urging your ‘‘expedited confirmation.’’ 

A. Did you contact the PLF between January 14, 2013 and November 21, 

2013? If so, when did you contact the PLF and what was the nature of your 

exchange with the PLF? 

B. Do you know or are you otherwise aware of any person contacting the PLF 

on behalf or in support of you between January 14, 2013 and November 21, 

2013? If so, who contacted the PLF and when did that person or persons contact 

the PLF? 

Answer. In my role as Principal Deputy Director of the BLM, I meet regularly 

with outside groups, including the Public Lands Foundation, to gather input on 

issues important to the management of public lands. As you note, the Public Lands 

Foundation is an organization comprised primarily of retired BLM professionals. I 

am honored by the organization’s support for my nomination. I did not, however, 

request its support. Similarly, I am not aware of anyone having contacted the Public 

Lands Foundation on my behalf. 
64 

Question 20. You testified before the Committee that: ‘‘we have somewhere around 

33 states where there are oil and gas revenues being produced on public lands, 

but.just over half of those states have stepped forward to establish some sort of 

baseline regulation when it comes to hydraulic fracturing.’’ 

Please provide a list of all states that have not established ‘‘baseline regulation’’ 

for hydraulic fracturing. For each of the states that have not established baseline 

regulation for hydraulic fracturing, please list: (a) the total amount of oil and gas 

produced on public lands for each of the last five years; and (b) of these amounts 

how much oil and gas was produced using hydraulic fracturing for each of the last 

five years. 

Answer. The BLM does not currently monitor hydraulic fracturing and therefore 

cannot estimate how much oil and gas was produced using that method. State regulation of hydraulic fracturing is changing rapidly, and regulatory provisions vary between states. The BLM revised proposed rule on hydraulic fracturing will establish 

baseline environmental safeguards for hydraulic fracturing operations across all 

public and Indian lands, while providing flexibility to oil and gas operators in situations where a state’s regulation meets or exceeds the BLM standards. 

Question 21. BLM proposes air quality management goals, objectives, and actions 

in several proposed Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The State of Wyoming, 

with oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has primacy over 

air quality issues in Wyoming. What authority is BLM relying on to develop its own 

air quality management goals, objectives, and actions? 

Answer. The BLM acknowledges and respects the role of the states that have primacy for Clean Air Act compliance. The BLM is required to comply with the Clean 

Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act for actions or authorizations on 

public lands. In addition, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

the BLM has responsibility for land use planning and is required, among other 

things, ‘‘to weigh long-term benefits to the public and short-term benefits’’ and ‘‘provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including state and federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans.’’ 

FLPMA also states that it is the policy of the United States that ‘‘the public lands 

be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, 

ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological 

values,’’ among others. 

Question 22. I understand that several RMPs under revision in Wyoming propose 

air resource management plans that are inconsistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the Department of the Interior (DOI) signed with EPA and 

the Department of Agriculture in 2011. Why is BLM not following the existing MOU 

and instead establishing new air resource management plans? 

Answer. The 2011 National Air Quality MOU outlined steps to analyze and mitigate the potential impacts to air resources associated with oil and gas decisions on 

Federal lands. The BLM in Wyoming worked closely with the MOU signatories to 

develop the Air Resource Management Plans included in the Resource Management 

Plans (RMPs) under revision, which address how the BLM in Wyoming will manage 

air resource impacts from development. In addition to the MOU signatories, the 

BLM ensured that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the 

Governor’s office were involved in the development of the Air Resource Management 

Plans. The RMPs are not yet final. The public review process will be completed according to the timetable for each plan, with completion dates ranging from early 

2014 to mid 2016. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure that the BLM undertakes 

appropriate and collaborative resource management planning. 

Question 23. BLM proposes timing restrictions, required design features, and access restrictions that will impact valid existing oil and gas leases. How does BLM 

plan to protect existing lease rights in accordance with the BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook? 

Answer. The BLM’s land use plan decisions are subject to valid existing rights. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that valid existing rights are protected pursuant to the 

requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

Question 24. BLM proposes making large areas of land unavailable to oil and gas 

leasing in many of its RMPs currently under revision. 

However, FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior to comply with special 

procedures before making a management decision that removes a principal or major 

use, such as oil and gas leasing. For example, section 204 requires the Secretary 

to notify Congress and provide it with specific information about a withdrawal. 

I understand that DOI, to date, has not complied with section 204 of FLPMA or 

BLM’s implementing regulations in 43 C.F.R. part 2300. Why is BLM removing a 

principal use or public lands without following the procedures required by law? 
65 

Answer. Land use decisions regarding the availability of public lands for oil and 

gas leasing are completed through the planning process, which involves an open and 

public dialogue. A BLM decision through the planning process to close an area to 

oil and gas leasing is not a withdrawal and therefore is not subject to the requirements outlined in Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA). 

I am aware that FLPMA Section 204(c) requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

notify Congress of Section 204 withdrawals of over 5,000 acres. The Department of 

the Interior complies with this notification requirement whenever a Section 204 

withdrawal of over 5,000 acres is made. If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM 

continues to fulfill its responsibilities for Congressional notification pursuant to 

FLPMA for such withdrawals. 

Question 25. The State of Wyoming, local governments, and many stakeholders 

have spent considerable resources developing and implementing greater sage grouse 

management strategies to protect the species. 

DOI has endorsed Wyoming’s efforts. For example, in response to the Wyoming 

Governor’s renewal of a state executive order establishing a sage grouse ‘‘core areas’’ 

conservation plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stated: 

‘‘The Service believes the Executive Order can result in the long term 

conservation of the greater sage grouse, and thus reduce the need to list 

the species under the Endangered Species Act.’’ 

However, BLM does not seem to agree with FWS. Through its RMP revisions, 

BLM is imposing management policies that are inconsistent with the strategy implemented by Wyoming. 

a. Prior to proposing its management policies for greater sage grouse in Wyoming, did BLM conduct a review to determine whether these polices were consistent with the Wyoming sage grouse plan. 

Answer. Yes. In support of the State’s strategy, on December 29, 2009, the BLM 

Wyoming issued the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Policy Instruction Memorandum (IM), WY IM 2010-012. This IM recognizes the State’s ‘‘core areas’’ for population management focus and represents the BLM’s substantial effort to actively 

manage those habitats on public lands in support of the population management objectives, as set by the State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

b. Do you agree with the assessment from FWS on the Wyoming sage grouse 

plan? 

Answer. The BLM concurs with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s assessment that 

Wyoming’s plan can result in long-term conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse. 

c. If confirmed, would you direct BLM to incorporate Wyoming’s sage grouse 

plan into BLM planning processes without further restrictions on top of those 

that exist within the Wyoming sage grouse plan. 

Answer. The BLM has incorporated Wyoming’s sage grouse plan into alternatives 

in each of the four National Environmental Policy Act documents that the BLM is 

preparing in Wyoming as part of the National Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort 

being undertaken with the U.S. Forest Service, States and other key partners. The 

final planning decisions will be made after consideration of input from the public. 

Question 26. For more than a year, BLM has been engaged in a systematic review 

of its management practices for conservation of the greater sage grouse in western 

states. In some states, the new conditions being considered would dramatically 

shrink the availability of multiple use on and access to public lands. 

a. What process did BLM use to determine the scientists on which the agency 

would rely. 

Answer. The BLM planning team for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning effort is 

comprised of a wide range of natural resource specialists and scientists. As part of 

its Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, the BLM utilizes the best available 

science drawn from experts both inside and outside the government. The planning 

effort is analyzing a wide range of factors impacting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation as identified in the National Technical Team (NTT) report, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report, and the U.S. Geological 

Survey’s Baseline Environmental Report (BER). Each of these reports was peer reviewed and based on the latest scientific studies. The BLM also relies heavily on 

partnerships with experts from state fish and wildlife agencies, particularly through 

the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). Through the na-
66 

tional planning effort, the BLM utilizes the best available science alongside input 

from state fish and wildlife agencies to ensure land managers and biologists tailor 

land use decisions to local ecological conditions. 

b. What peer review process does BLM follow for its sage grouse management 

practices? 

Answer. The development of the National Technical Team (NTT) report followed 

the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Data Quality Guidelines, and sought a peer 

review commissioned through the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA). 

In the planning process currently underway, the BLM will consider the NTT report, the COT report, the BER report, and other best available science before making final planning decisions. 

Question 27. BLM currently has an excess of wild horses both in long-and shortterm holding facilities as well as on BLM lands. 

a. If no changes are made to BLM policy and no legislative action is taken, 

what are the long-term implications both financially for BLM and ecologically 

for BLM lands? 

Answer. The rapid rate of on-range population growth requires the BLM to develop innovative long-term solutions that ensure Appropriate Management Levels 

are maintained, while limiting the number of animals placed in holding facilities. 

I remain committed to implementing reforms that draw from a recent National 

Academy of Sciences report, and, if confirmed, will continue to work with Congress 

and interested stakeholders to put the Wild Horse and Burro program on sound financial and ecological footing for the long term. 

b. BLM is currently violating the law by failing to maintain Appropriate Management Levels. What is BLM’s plan for population control? 

Answer. The BLM continues to make reforms to the Wild Horse and Burro program to ensure humane care, achieve financial sustainability, and promote ecological balance on the range. As part of the BLM’s effort to limit population growth, 

the Bureau is working with the scientific and veterinary communities to develop 

longer-lasting population control tools. In 2014, the BLM intends to support several 

pilot efforts to develop and evaluate potential tools, including more effective 

immunocontraceptives. All pilot efforts supported by the BLM will be peer reviewed 

by a group of well-qualified scientists. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

Congress to deal with the unique challenges posed by the management of wild 

horses and burros on public rangelands. 

c. If confirmed, would you direct BLM to use sale authority if the appropriation rider language was removed? 

Answer. It is the policy of the BLM not to sell wild horses or burros without limitation. I am committed to improving the Wild Horse and Burro program, and if confirmed, will continue to expand partnerships and support innovative ideas that help 

the BLM place animals in well-qualified homes. 

Question 28. I understand that BLM provides grants and similar sources of Federal funding to entities outside the Federal government. I find this troubling given 

recent budget constraints within DOI and BLM. 

Please provide the Committee with a detailed accounting of all grants and similar 

sources of Federal funding that BLM made to outside entities between October 2011 

and the present. Please provide the name of the recipient, the total amount awarded, and under what authority BLM provided the funding. 

Answer. Both the Department of the Interior and the BLM are committed to 

using appropriated funds judiciously and in a way that maximizes on-the-ground 

benefit. The Challenge Cost Share Program demonstrates how the BLM partners 

with local organizations to meet priorities for on-the-ground habitat, recreation, and 

cultural resource work. For example, in some very recent projects, federal funds 

have leveraged up to six times that amount in partner contributions. If confirmed, 

I would ensure that the BLM continues to use funding wisely to meet our multipleuse and sustained yield mission. We would be happy to discuss this request with 

you or your staff so that the Bureau can better understand the scope of the inquiry 

and provide the information that you seek. 

RESPONSES OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 29. Please identify any incident of groundwater contamination that directly resulted from hydraulic fracturing that was identified by BLM and served as 
67 

the catalyst for interjecting a major new rulemaking on top of what states are already doing? 

Answer. It is a BLM responsibility to ensure that activities on public lands are 

carried out in a manner that protects public health, safety, and the environment. 

Existing BLM regulations governing hydraulic fracturing operations on public lands 

are more than three decades old and were not written to address modern hydraulic 

fracturing activities. As with all of its programmatic areas, the BLM is committed 

to maintaining regulations that keep pace with current conditions. 

Question 30. Please identify any states and the appropriate regulatory agency 

that has failed to regulate hydraulic fracturing activity where that failure has resulted in actual environmental harm. Please cite the specific incident, if any. 

Answer. As this Administration has expanded opportunities for safe and responsible domestic energy production on federal and tribal lands, the Department of the 

Interior has proposed common sense regulatory updates while also providing flexibility and facilitating coordination with states and tribal nations. The BLM incorporated input from members of the public, various stakeholders, states, tribal nations, industry, and many others when preparing the revised proposed rule. If confirmed, I will ensure that this input is fully considered in developing appropriate 

safety and environmental protections. 

Question 31. What do you anticipate to be the annual costs to the BLM of being 

able to administer the proposed hydraulic fracturing rule? 

Answer. The BLM would administer the hydraulic fracturing rule as part of its 

ongoing responsibilities to manage the oil and gas program. The BLM is reviewing 

more than 1.3 million comments received during the public review of the revised 

proposed rule and will be able to provide details on administrative requirements 

once the rule is finalized. 

Question 32. Has BLM conducted any economic assessment of what impact this 

new rule might have upon its ability to effectively and efficiently process APDs, 

process renewable energy project applications, or even how the increased burden 

might divert resources from steadily increasing costs for the wild horse program? 

Answer. As noted in the response to the previous question, the BLM is currently 

reviewing more than 1.3 million comments received during the public review of the 

revised proposed rule and will be able to provide details on administrative requirements once the rule is finalized. If confirmed, I will continue to work to ensure that 

the BLM supports its obligations, including the processing of drilling permits, renewable energy project applications, and the wild horse and burro program, along 

with our regulatory efforts related to oil and gas development on public lands. 

Question 33. Has any direction of any kind, written or otherwise, been given to 

any personnel within the agency to not conduct wild horse gathers at this time? If 

so, might the promulgation of a new rule on BLM hydraulic fracturing divert resources from activities such as being able to conduct wild horse gathers? 

Answer. The BLM is working closely with our individual BLM State Directors to 

evaluate gathers on a case-by-case basis. 

If confirmed, I will continue to work to ensure that the agency meets its obligations, including our regulatory responsibilities related to oil and gas development on 

public lands. 

Question 34. While it is clear that there will be some impact to other programs 

as BLM diverts its limited resources to duplicate state regulatory efforts, why has 

BLM not conducted any analysis of how this new regulatory effort might impact ongoing activities that BLM has stated are a priority? 

Answer. The BLM is responsible for instituting and enforcing regulations that 

provide for safe and responsible development of oil and gas resources on public 

lands. Like its work in other resource areas, the agency takes seriously its responsibility for having regulations that are up-to-date and responsive to current operating 

realities. 

Question 35. Does BLM plan to hire new personnel to administer this new hydraulic fracturing rule? BLM has sometimes had a difficult challenge in attracting 

people with highly technical capabilities to come to the agency because they can be 

paid substantially more in industry. Where will these new hires come from? Do you 

expect that the agency will attempt to hire away personnel from state agencies since 

those agencies have decades of experience already in regulating these activities 

while BLM does not? 

Answer. The BLM is already working to fulfill its responsibilities related to oil 

and gas development at a time of increasing demand for trained personnel by both 

industry and government. The BLM is working to address challenges associated 

with recruitment and retention of applicants for skilled positions by looking closely 

at ways to get certified petroleum engineer technicians on the job more quickly and 

at ways to increase base salaries for petroleum engineers and technicians, which are 
68 

significantly less than salaries that are paid by industry. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members of Congress to identify new 

approaches to this ongoing challenge. 

Question 36. Recently, the Utah BLM deferred nearly 100,000 acres from an auction that was scheduled to take place on November 19, 2013. The deferral occurred 

only days before the auction. Could you provide the documents supporting the decision to defer the acreage, including any emails referencing the decision to defer the 

acreage? What were the exact reasons for the deferral? Did the BLM, in deciding 

to defer the acreage, have any contact with outside groups prior to the deferral? 

Answer. The BLM in Utah decided to defer certain parcels from the November 

19 lease sale in order to provide additional time to address concerns about potential 

impacts to the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, cultural resources, and sensitive 

species. It is my understanding that the BLM Utah State Director met with a variety of stakeholders prior to the decision, including industry, state and county officials, conservation groups, and other federal agencies. I would be happy to meet 

with you to define the scope of your request for specific documents leading up to 

the decision to defer some of the parcels from the November 19, 2013, lease sale. 

RESPONSES OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR RISCH

Question 37. Myself, along with Senator Crapo, would like to know more about 

your philosophy as it relates to collaborative problem-solving at the Bureau of Land 

Management. If you are confirmed, will you commit to fully implementing the 

Owyhee Initiative (Public Law 111-11) which is based upon collaborative problemsolving? 

Answer. I am committed to using collaborative approaches to solving problems 

whenever possible. Bringing stakeholders together to address public land management issues is beneficial for the BLM, the public lands and their resources, and 

stakeholders. If confirmed, I will work with the BLM’s Idaho State Director to ensure that the BLM continues to work collaboratively with the Owyhee Initiative and 

others to fully implement Public Law 111-11 and other statutes that govern the 

BLM’s management of public lands. 

Question 38. Myself, along with Senator Crapo, would like to know if you will direct the BLM to honor its commitments during the negotiations and legislative lead 

up to the law’s passage in 2009, including the outstanding memorandum of understanding between the BLM and the Owyhee Initiative Board of Directors, inconsistent policies related to motorized herding in wilderness and execution of agreements associated with a ‘‘science review’’ process wherein range management experts review scientific assertions in environmental analyses required for National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance on any given allotment and make specific 

science-based recommendations on the management regime for that specific allotment? 

Answer. The BLM values its partnership with the Owyhee Initiative Board of Directors and is committed to implementing Public Law 111-11, in addition to fulfilling its obligations under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, and other laws. If confirmed, I will work with the BLM 

Idaho State Director to ensure that the BLM continues close collaboration with the 

Owyhee Initiative Board, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and other stakeholders on wilderness management, range management and the application of best available 

science for public land management in Owyhee County. 

RESPONSES OF NEIL KORNZE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LANDRIEU

Question 39. Mr. Kornze—what do you see as the future role of the BLM in the 

regulation of onshore oil and natural gas production—that is, do you see BLM assuming a greater regulatory role, or do you envision a balance between Federal and 

state regulation that allows those states currently doing a good job of regulating 

their oil and gas industries to continue to do so? 

Answer. The BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mandate gives the agency 

a unique stewardship responsibility in the management of public lands and resources. The BLM implements its mandate in a highly collaborative manner, reaching out to all stakeholders and working closely with our fellow regulators, including 

states and tribal nations. If confirmed, I will continue to work closely with states, 

tribal nations, industry partners and others as we move forward with the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy. 

Question 40. Do you agree that with the current delay in permitting compared to 

private lands has reduced the ability of Federal lands to contribute to the growth 

in domestic energy production? You mention a new leasing system to be rolled out 

in the coming months, could you detail the specifics of that plan and what effect 
69 

you envision it will have? Do you have other plans to streamline the permitting 

process? 

Answer. The BLM has made important strides in oil and gas permitting in recent 

years. Industry now has nearly 7,000 approved drilling permits in-hand and available for use on public lands and minerals. As I mentioned in my testimony, the 

BLM is also developing a new electronic Application for Permit to Drill (APD) processing system to increase efficiency, which will track drilling permits through the 

entire process and provide greater transparency for the BLM, industry, and the public. Our plan is to pilot this electronic system in parts of Utah and New Mexico during the first half of 2014. Once the system is ready for broader deployment, it will 

be rolled out nationwide. If confirmed, I will ensure that the BLM continues to take 

advantage of opportunities like this to improve our permitting efforts and to provide 

greater certainty and predictability to industry. 

Question 41. In response to the National Academy of Sciences findings, what specific efforts is BLM making to employ the use of immunecontraceptive technologies, 

reduce round-ups, and reform the management strategies that have been found 

lacking? 

Answer. The BLM is currently evaluating the Wild Horse and Burro program in 

light of the recent National Academies of Sciences report and is adopting many of 

the recommendations outlined in the study. The BLM continues to make reforms 

to the Wild Horse and Burro program to ensure humane care, achieve financial sustainability, and promote ecological balance on the range. As part of the BLM’s effort 

to limit population growth, the Bureau is working with the scientific and veterinary 

communities to develop longer-lasting population control tools. In 2014, the BLM intends to support several pilot efforts to develop and evaluate potential tools, including more effective immunocontraceptives. Pilot efforts supported by the BLM will 

be peer reviewed by a group of well-qualified scientists. In addition to facilitating 

the development of more effective population growth suppression tools, the BLM 

plans to implement improved population survey methods and to review its policy for 

establishing and adjusting Appropriate Management Levels. The BLM is also evaluating several options to reduce the numbers of animals in off-range holding facilities, including reforming the adoption program, partnering with new Federal, State, 

and non-profit partners to find good homes for animals, and exploring options for 

lower-cost off-range holding facilities. Each of these efforts will be grounded in the 

best available science and incorporate the input of interested stakeholders. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to deal with the difficult challenges 

posed by management of wild horses and burros on public rangelands. 

(71) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION •AMERICAN FLY FISHING

TRADE ASSOCIATION • BERKLEY CONSERVATION INSTITUTE • BOONE & CROCKETT

• THE CONSERVATION FUND • DELTA WATERFOWL • DUCKS UNLIMITED • IZAAK

WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA • MULE DEER FOUNDATION • NATIONAL SHOOTING

SPORTS FOUNDATION • THE NATURE CONSERVANCY • NORTH AMERICAN GROUSE

PARTNERSHIP • PHEASANTS FOREVER • THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION

PARTNERSHIP • TREAD LIGHTLY • TROUT UNLIMITED • QUAIL FOREVER • WILD

SHEEP FOUNDATION • WILDLIFE FOREVER • WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Our organizations represent hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts throughout 

the United States. We write to you today to express our support for the nomination 

of Neil Kornze to become the next Director of the Bureau of Land Management. 

In nominating Neil Kornze to lead the Bureau of Land Management, the President has selected a voice for the West who has helped forge solutions to some of 

the nation’s most complex natural resource challenges. For more than a decade, Neil 

has helped ensure that the priorities of sportsmen and Western communities are 

heard in Washington and reflected in the nation’s energy and public lands policies. 

As Principal Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Neil has 

applied an effective brand of listening and leadership to help the organization modernize key functions for the benefit of the public. In particular, Kornze has placed 

a focus on implementing the Secretary’s onshore oil and gas leasing reforms, including enhanced public input, siting energy development in areas of minimal conflict, 

driving landscape-level planning efforts, and dramatically expanding the agency’s 

use of technology for energy permitting and land surveys. In doing so, Neil has 

shown that with smart policies and careful planning the U.S. can balance energy 

development on public lands with conservation and recreation. 

In particular, sportsmen worked effectively with Kornze to effectively launch and 

site solar development on public lands. He heard our concerns, and worked with us 

and with industry to balance conservation of critical wildlife habitat with utilityscale development. Today, we are on track to meet the goal of having sufficient renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than 6 million homes by 

2020. 

In conclusion, Neil has demonstrated the qualities that the hunting and fishing 

communities expect in a BLM Director. We are very encouraged that he has been 

nominated him to this crucial post and encourage you to approve his nomination 

as soon as possible. 

CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY, 

Sacramento, CA, December 10, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATORS WYDEN AND MURKOWSKI, 

I write to offer my strong support of President Obama’s appointment of Neil 

Kornze as Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

In his present role at BLM’s principal deputy director, Mr. Kornze has been an 

effective manager of the agency and its 245 million acres of public lands. He is a 

leader who is open-minded and inclusive toward the perspectives of states and 

stakeholders. His understanding of the role of federal lands in the West, particularly 
72 

for the potential for renewable energy generation is of significant interest to California. Of note, Neil has a demonstrated history in supporting Native American consultation, especially as it relates to oil, gas and renewable energy development. 

Mr. Kornze’s collaborative style, approach to western states and experience within 

the Department of Interior will serve him well as he addresses the many resource 

management issues that the Bureau of Land Management oversees. 

I strongly urge the committee to undertake his nomination and support confirmation of Neil Kornze as the next Director of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN LAIRD, 

Secretary for Natural Resources, 

State of California. 

NEW MEXICO GREEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 

Albuquerque, NM, November 8, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate 

Building, Washington, DC, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen 

Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI: The New Mexico Green 

Chamber of Commerce (NMGCC) and its local chapters represent businesses dedicated to building healthy economies in New Mexico’s diverse communities. We write 

to you today to support the confirmation of Neil Kornze as the next Director of the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

New Mexico is ranked 2nd in the nation for solar potential, 12th for wind potential, and has vast untapped geothermal and biomass resources. We believe Mr. 

Kornze’s leadership and hands-on experience launching responsible solar and wind 

energy projects on federal lands will help create jobs and investment in New Mexico’s local economies through clean energy development. 

Last year, Mr. Kornze listened to the NMGCC, our congressional delegation and 

other local stakeholders seeking to protect the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument near Taos. Already, the BLM reports that the monument has seen a 40 percent increase in visitation—bolstering the local economy and local employers. We 

look forward to working with him to ensure our small business perspective is included in the new monument’s management planning. 

We also look forward to the opportunity to educate Mr. Kornze about our members’ interests in seeing the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks BLM lands protected 

in Southern New Mexico. An economic study we commissioned shows that a monument designation could infuse the local economy with $7.4 million, nearly double the 

number of tourism jobs available to residents, and over $500,000 annually in local 

and state tax revenue. 

Mr. Kornze has shown he understands and appreciates that New Mexico’s economy is closely tied to its public lands. Should he be confirmed, we look forward to 

the opportunity to continue working with Mr. Kornze to ensure our perspective is 

considered in the BLM’s balanced public lands policies. 

Sincerely, 

LAURA E. SANCHEZ, ESQ., CEO. 

November 8, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate 

Building, Washington, DC. 

SENATOR WYDEN: 

We wish to express our support for the nomination and swift confirmation of Neil 

Kornze to serve as Director of the Bureau of Land Management. BLM lands are extremely important to sportsmen across the west but particularly in New Mexico 

where over 90 percent of our residents hunt on public land. In nominating Mr. 

Kornze, the President has chosen a voice for the west and common-sense conservation to lead this vital agency. 

Since March 1, 2013, Mr. Kornze has been leading the BLM as the agency’s Principal Deputy Director, and prior to serving in his current role; Mr. Kornze was the 

BLM’s Acting Deputy Director for Policy and Programs starting in October 2011. 
73 

Mr. Kornze joined the organization in January 2011 as a Senior Advisor to the Director. 

Before coming to the Bureau of Land Management, Mr. Kornze worked as a Senior Advisor to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, while in that role 

Mr. Kornze worked in cooperation with Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico to 

develop and pass the nation’s most significant public lands legislation in recent 

memory, The Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009. 

As a leader in the BLM’s move toward landscape-scale planning, and as one of 

the architects of the largest land conservation legislation in a generation, Neil has 

shown that—with smart policies and careful planning—the U.S. can safely encourage energy development on public lands while also expanding opportunities for 

hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. 

Mr. Kornze’s reputation for working with all stakeholders for common-sense solutions has been proven in New Mexico where he traveled to the Northern New Mexico to hear directly from sportsmen and other community members prior to the 

broadly supported Rio Grande del Norte National Monument designation—which 

will protect hunting, fishing and habitat for the future in one of the west’s most 

spectacular landscapes. We look forward to working with Mr. Kornze as we move 

closer to permanent protection for the iconic Organ Mountains/Desert Peaks area 

in Southern New Mexico. 

As New Mexico sportsmen we wish to again express our strong support for swift 

confirmation of Neil Kornze to Director of the BLM. 

Sincerely, 

OSCAR SIMPSON, CHAIRMAN, 

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, New Mexico Chapter, 

JOHN CORNELL, PRESIDENT, 

Dona Ana County Associated Sportsmen, 

RAY TREJO, PRESIDENT, 

New Mexico Wildlife Federation, 

SANFORD SCHEMNITZ, CHAIRMAN, 

Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen, 

MAX TRUJILLO, PRESIDENT, 

Sportsmen Concerned of Northern New Mexico, 

TONER MITCHELL, NEW MEXICO PUBLIC LANDS COORDINATOR, 

Trout Unlimited. 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF COALITION, 

December 16, 2013. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI, 

I am writing on behalf of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Governors Coalition, 

which is a group of coastal state governors who joined together in May 2011 to promote a constructive dialogue on OCS energy-resource planning and development 

among coastal state governors and federal policy makers. Currently, I serve as chair 

of the Coalition. On behalf of the Coalition, I respectfully request that you consider 

addressing the topics listed below with Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land 

and Minerals Management-Designate Janice Schneider during her confirmation 

hearing before your committee on December 17, 2013. 

As you know, all federal decisions regarding energy exploration and production on 

the OCS must be made in consultation with affected states. However, in recent 

years, the federal government has had little consultation with the states before taking significant actions affecting OCS energy development. For this reason, the governors have joined the Coalition to foster a more productive dialogue between the 

federal government and the coastal states on energy-resource evaluation, sustainable resource development, and other OCS policy matters. 

Should she be confirmed, the OCS Governors Coalition hopes to cultivate a substantive, ongoing dialogue with Ms. Schneider on the opportunities and challenges 

facing offshore energy development and the roles that coastal states play in the development and execution of federal OCS policy. 
74 

ITEMS OF INTEREST FOR DISCUSSION WITH MS. SCHNEIDER

1. One of the core missions of the OCS Governors Coalition is to promote a 

constructive dialogue with federal policy makers on decisions affecting offshore 

development. Unfortunately, over the past few years, the governors have been 

concerned with the lack of communication between state and federal officials, 

particularly in regard to the development of offshore leasing plans. 

a. Of note, President Obama canceled Lease Sale 220 off Virginia in December 2010 without sufficient consultation with the Commonwealth of Virginia. The bipartisan leadership in Virginia has clearly indicated multiple 

times that it supports a leasing program in the Atlantic, and Governor 

McDonnell has addressed the Administration’s concerns about safety and 

spill containment infrastructure and coordination with military operations 

in the area. 

b. Similarly, prior to release of the proposed Final Outer Continental 

Shelf Oil and Natural Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017, the State of 

Alaska was not consulted on the Department of the Interior’s decision to 

postpone lease sales off Alaska one year from the initial timeframe. 

c. Understanding the multiple stakeholder conversations that go into 

planning a leasing program, can you discuss the legal and otherwise appropriate role for the input of state governments? What actions would you take 

to ensure sufficient and ongoing input from the states? 

2. A second priority for the OCS Governors Coalition is the pace of permitting 

for OCS oil and natural gas operators. Following the temporary deepwater drilling moratorium in 2010, operators experienced significant delays in plan and 

permitting approval. Even though operators in the Gulf of Mexico are starting 

to return to pre-Macondo operation levels, several concerns with the inefficient 

and inconsistent regulatory regime for offshore operators remain. 

a. What measures can be taken by the Department of the Interior to ensure a more timely and consistent regulatory framework for all operators 

without sacrificing environmental safety? 

3. In a previous meeting of the governors, we each agreed that revenue sharing of royalties generated from offshore leasing and energy production should 

be shared equally with all coastal states that produce energy—either traditional 

or renewable—off their respective shores. These revenues are critical for funding state coastal restoration and conservation efforts as well as other state programs. While Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (all OCS Governor 

member states) benefit from revenue sharing that is capped and can only be 

used for limited purposes, Alaska and states along the Atlantic coast are not 

eligible for revenue sharing. 

a. Do you believe there should be consistency on revenue sharing for all 

coastal states? 

4. Virginia Governor McDonnell, North Carolina Governor McCrory, and 

South Carolina Governor Haley—all of whom are members of the Coalition— 

support the opening of the Atlantic for oil and natural gas exploration. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is working on a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for geological and geophysical activity in the 

Atlantic in order to allow seismic surveyors to uncover the true potential of the 

resources in that region. The PETS review has already lasted nearly four years 

and the coalition has continuing concerns that further delays could ultimately 

forestall Atlantic leasing. At the same time, we are pleased that Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Tommy Beaudreau recently acknowledged that the Interior Department can proceed with including Atlantic 

leasing in the next five year plan, even if new seismic data has not yet been 

collected. 

a. Can you please discuss your thoughts on including additional leasing 

opportunities in the Department’s 2017-2022 leasing plan? 

5. A recent report released by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for 

Scholars recommends that lease terms in the Arctic OCS be lengthened to ensure that operators have sufficient time to recoup the large capital investment 

required to extract resources in this region. Currently, lease terms are ten years 

in the Arctic. Greenland allows for 16 year extensions of leases, and Canada 

permits companies to retain leases indefinitely if oil or gas is found within the 

initial nine year lease timeframe. The report suggests that a combination of the 
75 

Greenland and Canadian lease frameworks would be appropriate in the American Arctic. 

a. Could you please discuss your thoughts on the possibility of expanding 

the lease timeframe with respect to the Arctic OCS to ensure that operators 

are able to operate efficiently in a frontier region? 

Thank you for consideration of these important matters as you prepare for the December 17th hearing. 

For general information on the Coalition and its members, please visit our website 

at http://www.ocsgovernors.org/. If you have any questions, or if the OCS Governors 

Coalition can be of any further assistance, please contact Kip Knudson, my Director 

of State and Federal Relations for the State of Alaska, at 202-624-5858 or via email 

at kip.kriudson@alaska.gov. 

Best regards, 

SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR OF ALASKA, 

Chair. 

SPORTSMEN FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, 

December 17, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chair, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI: 

On behalf of the Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development (SFRED) coalition and its founding partners the National Wildlife Federation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited, we write in support of the 

confirmation of Neil Kornze as Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

SFRED is a coalition of more than 1,000 businesses, organizations and individuals 

dedicated to conserving irreplaceable habitats so future generations can hunt and 

fish on public lands. The role of the BLM Director is an important one to SFRED. 

The BLM’s 248 million surface acres include valuable fish and wildlife habitats and 

many popular places to fish and hunt. These lands also provide timber, minerals, 

renewable energy, and other resources. To be effective in leading the BLM, the Director must understand the importance of balancing the multiple uses of public 

lands. 

During his time on Capitol Hill and in recent years at the BLM, Mr. Kornze has 

demonstrated a pragmatic, solutions-oriented approach to public lands challenges. 

For example, Mr. Kornze played a key role in creating a plan for the development 

of solar energy on public land in the West which carefully considered the input of 

hunters and anglers in order to better balance energy development with the conservation of important fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, his leadership in developing a large-scale mitigation strategy is a big step in the right direction for engaging sportsmen in lessening the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat from development on public lands. 

Much work remains to be done on BLM lands to ensure that the concerns of 

sportsmen/-women are fully considered in the management, conservation and development of our public lands. Energy development on our public lands provides great 

benefits but it must be done in a way that sustains our invaluable fish and wildlife 

heritage. 
76 

SFRED supports the nomination of Neil Kornze and is looking forward to working 

with him to ensure that energy is developed in a responsible manner that accommodates true multiple use on our public lands. We urge the committee to confirm him 

for the position of BLM Director. 

Sincerely, 

LARRY SCHWEIGER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

National Wildlife Federation, 

WHIT FOSBURGH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, 

CHRIS WOOD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

Trout Unlimited. 

Æ