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

49–779 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 111–23 

PONEMAN, SANDALOW, SUH, AND 

CONNOR NOMINATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN, TO BE DEPUTY 

SECRETARY OF ENERGY, THE NOMINATION OF DAVID B. SANDALOW, 

TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 

AND DOMESTIC POLICY), THE NOMINATION OF RHEA S. SUH, TO BE 

AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE NOMINATION 

OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, TO BE COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION 

MAY 5, 2009 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1 

Connor, Michael, Nominee to be Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior ...................................................................................... 13 

Lugar, Richard, U.S. Senator From Indiana ......................................................... 2 

Poneman, Daniel B., Nominee to be Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy 6 

Sandalow, David B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for International 

Affairs and Domestic Policy, Department of Energy ........................................ 9 

Suh, Rhea S., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management 

and Budget, Department of the Interior ............................................................ 11 

Warner, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Virginia ................................................. 4 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 25 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 41 

(1) 

PONEMAN, SANDALOW, SUH, AND 

CONNOR NOMINATIONS 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, 

chairman, presiding. 

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

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. Why do we not go ahead and get started? 

The committee meets this morning to consider four nominations 

for offices in the Department of Energy and the Department of the 

Interior. The four nominees are: Daniel B. Poneman, who is to be 

Deputy Secretary of Energy; David B. Sandalow, to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs and Domestic Policy; Rhea S. Suh, to be the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for 

Policy, Management and Budget; and Michael L. Connor, to be the 

Commissioner of Reclamation at the Department of the Interior. 

The President has nominated four highly qualified people for 

these important offices. 

For the past 8 years, Mr. Poneman has been a principal in The 

Scowcroft Group. Before that, he served as Director of Defense Policy and Arms Control at the National Security Council under the 

first President Bush and as a Special Assistant to the President 

and Senior Director of Nonproliferation and Export Control at the 

NSC under President Clinton. 

Mr. Sandalow is a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the 

Brookings Institution. During the Clinton administration, he 

served in senior offices in both the National Security Council and 

the Council on Environmental Quality before being appointed Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment and Science in the State 

Department. 

Both Mr. Poneman and Mr. Sandalow will bring to the Department of Energy valuable knowledge and experience in national security and international affairs. 

Ms. Suh was a Senior Legislative Assistant for Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell and later a consultant for the National Park 

Service. For the past 10 years, she has been a program officer for, 

first, the Hewlett Foundation and then the Packard Foundation. 

Mike Connor is well known to this committee. For the past 8 

years, he has been counsel to our committee. He has advised me 
2 

on water issues, as well as on Indian land and energy issues. He 

was instrumental in drafting and negotiating the Navajo Nation 

water settlement that was enacted as part of our Omnibus Public 

Lands Act earlier this year. He has been a major asset to me and 

to all members of this committee and will be greatly missed. 

So all four of the nominees are extremely well qualified for the 

positions they have been nominated. We are glad to have them before the committee this morning. 

Let me call on Senator Murkowski for any statement she has and 

then I will recognize our colleague, Senator Lugar, who wishes to 

make an introduction to us. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, no comments this morning 

other than a welcome and a good morning to the nominees, and I 

look forward to hearing their statements. Again, we recognize that 

the responsibilities, the duties both between the Department of the 

Interior and Department of Energy are very key. Sometimes this 

confirmation process seems a little slow and tedious, but it seems 

like things are stepping up. Again, I look forward to the comments 

from those who will be before us this morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Lugar, we are glad to see you this morning and welcome 

you to the Energy Committee and look forward to any comments 

you have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, 

for welcoming me to introduce David Sandalow, to be Assistant 

Secretary of Energy for Policy and International Affairs. I congratulate you and Senator Murkowski on thoughtful leadership of 

this committee while our Nation seeks to forge a secure and sustainable energy future. 

I believe that energy policy reform, in particular, eliminating our 

over-dependence on oil, is critical to bolstering our Nation’s security, economy, and foreign policy. That is why I am especially 

pleased to recommend David to this distinguished committee and 

to our Senate colleagues and to urge that he be confirmed quickly. 

David’s many years of public service include high-level positions 

in the State Department, the National Security Council, and most 

recently he has been a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. 

Over this time, David has demonstrated a keen understanding of 

the strategic importance of United States energy policy. Longstanding instability in the Middle East, OPEC supply manipulations since the 1970s, the empowerment of anti-Americanism from 

Caracas to Tehran, entrenchment of corrupt and authoritarian regimes, and outright conflict in places like the Niger Delta are all 

fueled by hundreds of billions of dollars that Americans spend to 

import oil. 

David brings innovative thinking to this complex problem. He 

has a proven ability to look over the horizon to formulate policy solutions that both meet current challenges and avert future crises. 

He understands that enhancing our energy security can go hand in 

hand with combatting the threats of climate change, but that bal-
3 

ancing these priorities requires very difficult choices. Many of his 

ideas on the topic are laid out in his excellent book, ‘‘Freedom from 

Oil’’, for which David spent time researching, I must point out, in 

Reynolds, Indiana, otherwise known as ‘‘biotown.’’ I recommend the 

book—I think it is a remarkable document—to colleagues, even if 

I had not contributed to it with a foreword. 

I note the position for which David is being considered as Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. For this, David 

has sound record of diplomatic experience, having served as an Assistant Secretary of State and on the National Security Council. He 

understands that domestic efforts to reduce oil dependence and improve our energy portfolio will have maximum effect if they are 

complemented by vigorous energy diplomacy abroad. As Assistant 

Secretary of Energy, David would play a critical role in meeting 

international energy challenges. We must find new ways of deepening cooperation on renewables, efficiency, and emergency response with other major consuming nations such as India and 

China. We must encourage countries holding major oil and gas reserves to make investment and supply decisions based on economics, not politics. We must find new ways to help poor nations provide the low energy cost that they need for sustained economic 

growth and to minimize the poor governance of oil revenues that 

have left too many oil-producing countries mired in poverty. 

Under my chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee and 

then under Chairmen Biden and Kerry, we have been working to 

ensure that our foreign policy fully reflects the challenge of global 

energy security. As Assistant Secretary of Energy, David would be 

tasked to oversee the other side of that equation to ensure our 

international energy activities support our foreign policy. With his 

range of executive branch experience, David would be well positioned to leverage the talent of energy, foreign policy, economic and 

climate professionals across the Government. 

The energy security problem David would face as Assistant Secretary of Policy and International Affairs—these questions are 

hardly new. We as a Nation have put off dealing with them for 

many years. Today, for the sake of our national security, our economy, our environment, we must find and implement solutions. 

I am confident that David Sandalow would be an exemplary addition to the Department of Energy and to the Obama administration. I am honored to introduce him to this committee. I thank you, 

Chairman Bingaman and Senator Murkowski, for having me here 

today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your strong endorsement of David Sandalow. We appreciate it, particularly coming 

from you with your vast experience on international issues, which 

will be a major focus of Mr. Sandalow’s activities in the Department. Thank you very much. 

We can excuse you at this point unless any member has a question, which I do not see anybody anxious to ask a question. Thank 

you for coming. 

Let me also recognize Senator Warner who is here to introduce 

to the committee, David Poneman, to be the Deputy Secretary of 

Energy. We are very glad to have you here and are anxious to hear 

your views. 
4 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the committee. I am delighted to 

be here to introduce my good friend, Dan Poneman. 

I have to indicate in the effort of full disclosure that I am not 

only here to recommend Dan professionally, but I can also recommend him personally. His kids and my kids went to elementary 

school together, and we have spent some time on hikes in the 

woods. There was a little camp that our kids would go to together, 

and we sometimes had to go with them as a parent to accompany 

them. So we have seen each other in less than formal circumstances, and I can assure you that not only will Dan bring 

great professional credentials to this very important position, but 

also great personal characteristics as well. 

Dan has served in the Clinton administration on the National 

Security Council. He has served as well under President Bush, 

George H.W. Bush, as well as, I mentioned, President Clinton. He 

spent a year at the Department of Energy as a White House fellow. 

He has practiced law. He has been a principal with Brent Scowcroft in The Scowcroft Group and has served on a number of Federal commissions and advisory panels and co-authored books on nuclear energy, including Going Critical, the first North Korean nuclear crisis, which received the 2005 Douglas Dillon Award for distinguished writing on American diplomacy. 

As I mentioned at the outset, I think Dan will be a great addition to the administration. He will be a great addition as an Assistant Secretary. I am proud to support him and, as a fellow Virginian, recommend him wholeheartedly to the committee for its 

consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much and thanks for taking the 

time to be here and heartily endorsing his nomination. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will excuse you. 

Let me at this point call all four nominees to the witness table. 

If they would please come up and just remain standing at the table 

there, we will administer the oath to everybody since that is an essential part of our rules here in the committee. 

Why don’t each of you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to the Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee shall be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. PONEMAN. I do. 

Mr. SANDALOW. I do. 

Ms. SUH. I do. 

Mr. CONNOR. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Please be seated. 

Before you begin your statements, I would ask three questions 

and address these to each of you. The first question is, will you be 

available to appear before this committee and other congressional 

committees to represent departmental positions and to respond to 

issues of concern to the Congress? Let me start with you, Mr. 

Poneman. If you would respond to that question. 

Mr. PONEMAN. I will, Mr. Chairman. 
5 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sandalow. 

Mr. SANDALOW. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Suh. 

Ms. SUH. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Connor. 

Mr. CONNOR. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. The second question: Are you aware of any personal holdings, investments, or interests that could constitute a 

conflict of interest or create the appearance of such a conflict 

should you be confirmed and assume the office to which you have 

been nominated by the President? 

Mr. Poneman. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Mr. Chairman, all of my personal assets have 

been reviewed both by myself and by appropriate ethics counselors 

within the Federal Government, and I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sandalow. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Mr. Chairman, all of my personal assets have 

been reviewed both by myself and by appropriate ethics counselors 

within the Federal Government, and I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Suh. 

Ms. SUH. My investments, personal holdings, and other interests 

have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate ethics 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Connor. 

Mr. CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings, 

and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have 

taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There 

are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Let me ask the third and final question. Are you involved or do 

you have any assets that are held in a blind trust? 

Mr. PONEMAN. No, sir. 

Mr. SANDALOW. No. 

Ms. SUH. No, sir. 

Mr. CONNOR. No, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. At this point, our tradition in the committee and habit here is to invite nominees to introduce any family 

members that are present that they would like to introduce at this 

point. Mr. Poneman, did you have anyone you would like to introduce? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to introduce 

to the committee my wife of nearly 25 years, Susan, and our youngest son William, who is 15. We have two older children at school. 

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome the family members that are here. 

Mr. Sandalow. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to introduce my wonderful wife of 20 years, Holly; my children, Ben, 

Maya, and Holly; my brother Marc; and my sister Judith. 

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome them as well. 
6 

Ms. Suh. 

Ms. SUH. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be joined today by my 

loving husband, Michael Carroll; my sister, Dr. Betty Sue 

Bergman; and my parents, Yung Ja and Chung Ha Suh. 

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome them to the committee. 

Mr. Connor. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, thank you. I am very fortunate to be joined by 

my wife Shari; my children, Matthew and Gabby; and my parents, 

Carl and Bea Connor. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to see them here, particularly your 

parents who I have not seen since I was last in Las Cruces. But 

it is great to have all of the family members here. 

Let me now recognize each of you to make whatever opening 

statement or statements you would like to make before the committee asks questions. 

Mr. Poneman. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN, NOMINEE TO BE 

DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bingaman, 

Senator Murkowski, distinguished members of the committee, it is 

an honor and a privilege to appear before you as President 

Obama’s nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. 

I am also honored that Senator Warner took time from his busy 

schedule to introduce me to the committee. 

If I may summarize, I would like to respectfully request to submit my entire statement to the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We will include all the written statements 

in the record, and if you could all summarize, that would be appreciated. Go right ahead. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful and 

humbled by the confidence that President Obama and Secretary 

Chu have expressed in me through this nomination. The President 

has articulated a clear and compelling vision for America’s energy 

future, one in which we can transform our economy, protect our security, and spare the world from the ravages of climate change. 

Secretary Chu, a brilliant scientist, who has transcended the world 

of pure theory and applied his knowledge in the world of industry 

as well, is a uniquely well-suited choice to implement this vision. 

If confirmed, I can assure this committee that I will work as hard 

as I can in support of these critical efforts and to justify their confidence and yours. 

In a sense, appearing before you today brings me full circle. My 

first Government experience came as a summer intern in the U.S. 

Senate in 1975 when I had the privilege to work for Senator John 

Glenn. 

20 years ago, the White House Fellows program brought me into 

the Department of Energy, and from there, as you heard from Senator Warner, I moved to the National Security Council. The prospect of applying that experience to the challenges that lay before 

us is truly daunting but, at the same time, an exciting opportunity. 

Americans do not shrink from challenges. We embrace them. 

When the Soviets launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957, Americans redoubled their efforts in science, and within a dozen years, 
7 

they had put a man on the moon. As President Kennedy said in 

1962, we chose to go to the moon ‘‘because that goal will serve to 

organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because 

that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.’’ 

We did win. Just as American technology was able to bridge the 

continent through the building of the intercontinental railroad and 

solid state transistors have connected us to the world, so too we 

can apply this technology in the service of our energy challenges. 

But technology alone cannot explain how we overcame these 

great challenges. Just as important are American leadership, determination, and an ability to keep our eye on the ball of our longterm strategic interests. That is how we won the cold war. In retrospect, our success may seem to have been assured, but the wise 

men surrounding President Harry Truman did not see it that way. 

While they could not see all the twists and turns that would lead 

them from Berlin to Cuba and beyond, they certainly knew that 

only a determined, concerted effort would succeed. 

One other element contributed to our success in the cold war. No 

U.S. policy, whose results must be measured over several decades, 

can succeed unless it enjoys broad, bipartisan support and close cooperation between our executive and legislative branches. The partnership between President Truman and Senator Arthur Vandenberg at the outset of the cold war exemplified that kind of partnership. History has judged that well. 

The challenges we face over the coming decades demand no less. 

If confirmed, I pledge that I will do my best to support the President and Secretary Chu and to work with the distinguished members of this committee to forge the kind of partnership that will 

best advance our shared interests in achieving America’s energy 

objectives in a manner that promotes our prosperity and protects 

our security. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poneman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished Members 

of the Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. 

I would like to introduce my wife of nearly 25 years, Susan, and our sons, Michael 

and William. Our daughter, Claire, is away at college. 

I am grateful and humbled by the confidence that President Obama and Secretary 

Chu have expressed in me through this nomination. President Obama has articulated a clear and compelling vision of America’s energy future—one that will transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the worst impacts 

of climate change. Achieving this vision will require the United States to play a 

leading international role in combating global warming, to invest in a secure energy 

future achieved through new technologies and improved efficiency, and to reduce 

nuclear dangers. Secretary Chu—as a brilliant scientist whose work has taken him 

beyond pure theory into the practical worlds of innovation and industrial applications—is uniquely qualified to spearhead the implementation of a new energy strategy. If confirmed, I can assure this Committee that I will work as hard as I can 

in support of those critical efforts to justify their confidence and yours. 

In a sense, appearing before you today brings me full circle. My first experience 

working in government occurred here, in the U.S. Senate, in 1975, through the opportunity of a summer internship with my home state Senator, John Glenn. That 

summer launched a lifelong interest in energy, national security, and the relationship between the two disciplines. For over 30 years I have pursued that interest as 
8 

I have passed through the worlds of academia, law, government, and business. Each 

phase has brought new perspectives and insights. 

Twenty years ago the White House Fellows program first brought me to the Department of Energy which, in turn, led to the opportunity to join the National Security Council staff under George H.W. Bush, where I participated in efforts to assure 

that the break-up of the Soviet Union did not result in the spread of nuclear materials and technologies to more nations and adversaries. This included the negotiations that led to the landmark deal under which the United States agreed to purchase 500 metric tons of highly-enriched uranium from the Soviet nuclear arsenal, 

to be blended down to low-enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. 

Under this ‘‘Megatons to Megawatts’’ program, over 14,000 nuclear warheads’ worth 

of HEU has been converted to LEU, and one in every ten American light bulbs is 

now powered by material that once sat atop missiles targeting our cities. 

When President Clinton assumed office, I remained to stand up the newly-formed 

Directorate for Nonproliferation and Export Controls at the National Security Council. As Special Assistant to the President, I worked hard on a wide array of nuclear 

and nonnuclear proliferation challenges in many parts of the globe, as well as on 

the 1995 conference which, through US leadership, secured the indefinite extension 

of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since leaving government service in 1996, 

I have worked on a wide variety of legal and commercial issues along the seams 

where law, policy, commerce, and national security intersect, first as an attorney at 

Hogan & Hartson and, since 2001, as a principal at The Scowcroft Group. 

The prospect of applying this experience to advance the interests of the Nation 

represents both an exciting challenge and an awesome opportunity. 

Americans do not shrink from challenges. They embrace them. That has been the 

hallmark of the American experience. When the Soviets launched the Sputnik satellite in 1957, Americans responded through a redoubled commitment to science, 

and within a dozen years won the race to place the first man on the moon. In 1962, 

President Kennedy said that we chose to go to the moon within the decade not because it was easy, but because it was hard, ‘‘because that goal will serve to organize 

and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that 

we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend 

to win. . . .’’ 

And we did win. Just as Americans have conquered so many challenges over the 

years—from building railroads to connect our continent to inventing the solid-state 

transistors that connected our world. 

Within that spirit and that wellspring of American ingenuity lie the answers to 

this Nation’s energy challenges. 

Better technology has played an indispensable role in moving our country forward—and science can give us better choices on energy. But technology alone cannot 

explain how we overcame these great challenges. Innovation is a necessary but not 

sufficient condition for success. Just as important are American leadership, determination, and an ability to keep our eye on the ball of our long-term strategic interests. 

That is how we won the Cold War. In retrospect, our success may seem to have 

been assured. But that is not how it appeared to the ‘‘wise men’’ surrounding President Truman, when they devised the containment strategy to counter the threat of 

Soviet aggression. They could not possibly have foreseen all the twists and turns 

that lay ahead, from Berlin to Cuba and beyond, but they understood that only a 

determined, collective effort would succeed. They supported the investments in technology to assure our military outmatched the Warsaw Pact, and organized the Atlantic Alliance to enlist the collective resources and energies of the West to resist 

Communist aggression. 

And one other element contributed to our success in the Cold War. No US policy 

whose results must be measured over several decades can succeed unless it enjoys 

bipartisan support, and close cooperation between our Executive and Legislative 

Branches. The partnership between President Harry Truman and Senator Arthur 

Vandenberg personified that cooperation at the outset of the Cold War, and history 

has judged that kind of partnership to have served our Nation well. The challenges 

we face over the coming decades—in transforming our energy systems, mitigating 

the effects of climate change, and sustaining our deterrent while reducing nuclear 

dangers—demand no less. If confirmed, I pledge that I will do my best to work with 

the distinguished members of this Committee to forge the kind of partnership that 

will best advance our shared interests in achieving America’s energy objectives in 

a manner that promotes our prosperity and protects our security. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sandalow, go right ahead. 
9 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. SANDALOW, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DOMESTIC POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. SANDALOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Murkowski, and members of the committee. Thank you for holding 

this hearing in this busy time. I am honored to appear before you 

as President Obama’s nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of 

Energy for Policy and International Affairs. I am deeply grateful to 

President Obama and Secretary Chu for entrusting me with this 

challenging assignment, and I am deeply grateful to Senator Lugar 

for his friendship, support, and generous introduction, as well as 

his long record of distinguished leadership on international energy 

issues. 

Thank you for allowing me to introduce members of my family 

who were here today earlier. I am also thinking today of my warm 

and loving grandmother, Mary Davis Cohn, who was taken from us 

recently after a long and full life. Today’s hearing would have made 

her very happy. 

When he appeared before this committee in January, Secretary 

Chu spoke of an ‘‘ambitious and urgent mission—to move to a sustainable, economically prosperous and secure energy future.’’ If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I would be a principal advisor to the 

Secretary on energy policy as he pursues this mission and would 

help coordinate the Department’s engagement on international affairs. 

My own professional background provides long training for this 

post. I am currently a Senior Fellow in foreign policy studies at the 

Brookings Institution where my research focuses on energy policy. 

During the 1990s, I served as an Assistant Secretary of State, as 

a senior director on the National Security Council staff, and as an 

associate director on the White House Council for Environmental 

Quality. Other parts of my background are set forth in the statement submitted for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, in the early 1980s, I was privileged to spend part 

of the summer in Shanghai in one of the first groups of exchange 

students to live in China following normalization of U.S.-China relations. At the time, there was one international phone line in the 

entire city of Shanghai that we could use to call home. I remember 

taking cabs to the Heping Hotel on weekends to do just that. In 

contrast, last year, when I landed at Beijing airport after a 14-hour 

nonstop flight from Washington, my BlackBerry automatically connected with a wireless network moments after the plane landed. By 

the time we reached the gate, I had already sent several emails to 

family and colleagues back home. 

Now, if you had told me more than 25 years ago that I would 

1 day send written messages around the world from a device I 

could fit in my pocket, as I sat waiting to unload from an airplane, 

I would have been skeptical. In much the same way, many people 

today doubt that we will ever be able to provide clean, cheap, and 

secure energy for billions of people around the world. However, I 

believe that clean energy technologies have the potential to transform the world in the next 25 years as much as information and 

communications technologies have in the past 25. I believe clean 

energy technologies can help speed recovery from our current eco-
10 

nomic troubles and provide good jobs for Americans for decades to 

come. 

The U.S. Department of Energy can play a central role in this 

transition. I am honored to be nominated to a leadership post in 

the Department at this very special moment. If confirmed, I look 

forward to working closely with members of this committee and 

with many others to help President Obama and Secretary Chu 

build a clean energy future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sandalow follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID B. SANDALOW, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DOMESTIC POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for holding this hearing in this busy time. I am honored to come before 

you as President Obama’s nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of Energy for 

Policy and International Affairs. I am deeply grateful to President Obama and Secretary Chu for entrusting me with this challenging assignment. I am also deeply 

grateful to Senator Lugar for his friendship, support and generous introduction, as 

well as his long record of distinguished leadership on international energy issues. 

I would like to introduce my wonderful wife of 19 years, Holly Hammonds, and 

our children, Ben, Maya and Holly. I am also delighted to introduce my brother 

Marc and sister Judith. The love and support of my family sustains me in everything I do. I am also thinking today of my warm and loving grandmother Mary 

Davis Cohn, who was taken from us recently after a long and full life. Today’s hearing would have made her very happy. 

When he appeared before this Committee in January, Secretary Chu spoke of an 

‘‘ambitious and urgent mission—to move to a sustainable, economically prosperous, 

and secure energy future.’’ If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, I would be a principal advisor to the Secretary on energy policy 

as he pursues this mission and would help coordinate the Department’s engagement 

on international affairs. 

My own professional background provides long training for this post. I am currently a senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, where 

my research and writing focuses on energy policy. In recent years, my work has included books and articles on oil dependence, plug-in electric vehicles and climate 

change. I have helped organize large conferences, expert seminars and bipartisan 

dialogue on the same topics. During the 1990s, I served as Assistant Secretary of 

State for Oceans, Environment & Science, as a senior director on the National Security Council and as an associate director on the staff of the White House Council 

on Environmental Quality. I have served as executive vice president of World Wildlife Fund-US, as an attorney at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and as 

an attorney in private practice. At the beginning of my career, I worked to create 

jobs for the people of Michigan in a position with the Michigan Department of Commerce. 

In the early 1980s, I was privileged to spend part of a summer in Shanghai, 

China, as part of one of the first groups of exchange students to live in China following normalization of U.S.-China relations. At the time, there was one international phone line in the entire city of Shanghai we could use to call home. I remember taking cabs to the Heping Hotel on weekends to do just that. In contrast, 

last year, when I landed at Beijing Airport after the 14-hour nonstop flight from 

Washington, my Blackberry automatically connected with a wireless network moments after my plane landed. By the time we reached the gate, I had already sent 

several emails to family and colleagues back home. 

If you had told me more than 25 years ago that I would one day send written 

messages around the world from a device I could fit in my pocket as I sat waiting 

to unload from an airplane, I would have been skeptical. In much the same way, 

many people today doubt we will ever be able to provide clean, cheap and secure 

energy for billions of people around the world. However I believe that clean energy 

technologies have the potential to transform the world in the next 25 years as much 

as information and communications technologies have in the past 25. I believe clean 

energy technologies can help speed recovery from our current economic troubles and 

provide good jobs for Americans for decades to come. 
11 

The U.S. Department of Energy can play a central role in this transition. I am 

honored to be nominated to a leadership post in the Department at this special moment. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with Members of this Committee—and with many others—to help President Obama and Secretary Chu build 

a clean energy future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Suh, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF RHEA S. SUH, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SUH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and 

distinguished members of the committee. It is an honor and privilege to be here today as President Obama’s nominee for Assistant 

Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget at the Department of 

the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity and thanks to the 

members of the committee staff and the personal staff who took 

time to meet with me last week. 

I also want to thank Secretary Salazar. It would be a great privilege to work for him, as well as the thousands of dedicated men 

and women within the Department itself. 

I was born on the edge of the Rocky Mountains in Boulder, Colorado, and raised by Korean immigrant parents who found their 

way to that great State like so many other pioneers with the 

dreams of freedom and of a better life for their family. Like so 

many other westerners, I grew up reaping the benefits of the lands 

and waters managed by our Federal Government. My dad first 

taught me how to fish in waters managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. As a Girl Scout, I camped out under the starry skies in 

Rocky Mountain National Park, and in high school, I helped build 

a section of the Continental Divide Trail, which is in part managed 

by the Bureau of Land Management. This tapestry of lands, the 

backdrop of my childhood, has influenced me and my values 

throughout my life. 

Early on in my career, I worked to inspire young people about 

our natural world as a high school teacher of earth sciences and 

then later as a consultant to the National Park Service. 

During my tenure as a legislative assistant to Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell, I worked in and with both political parties, 

negotiating collaborative opportunities in legislation that included 

the Presidio Trust, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park, and the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. 

Most recently, I have served as a grant-maker for two of the largest charitable foundations in the country, first at the Hewlett 

Foundation and now at the Packard Foundation. 

Over the last 11 years, I have managed hundreds of grants and 

millions of dollars focused on consideration in the North American 

West. In particular, I have sought opportunities to support a broad 

array of conservation voices, including the voices of Native Americans, hunters and anglers, faith-based coalitions, and environmental justice organizations. Over time, I have come to believe that 

the most durable and successful conservation policies are those 

that are created with broad input, including local input, to create 

place-based solutions that ultimately provide both biological sus-
12 

tainability of our natural systems as well as the economic viability 

of local communities. 

I believe that the Department of the Interior is presently facing 

many critical challenges. These challenges include issues of accountability and fiscal management, educating the public about the 

importance of public lands and resources, and understanding and 

reacting proactively to the impacts of climate change. With these 

challenges comes an enormous amount of opportunity and responsibility. The Department must bring a new level of transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness to its work. In addition, it must ensure 

broad public input into the decisionmaking process. Finally, the 

Department has a huge opportunity to involve a new generation of 

leaders helping them find a place in building the Department’s future legacy. 

So I would like to end by coming back to my beginnings. From 

the first time I hooked a rainbow trout with my dad, I was the beneficiary of the bounty of our Nation’s rich natural heritage. If confirmed, I hope to continue the legacy of this bounty by providing 

for the sustainable use and management of the Department’s lands 

and waters for the benefit of all of the people of this great country. 

Thank you so much for the honor. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Suh follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RHEA S. SUH, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, it is an honor and privilege to be here today as President Obama’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget at the Department of the Interior. Thank you for the 

opportunity and thanks to the members of the committee staff and personal staff 

who took the time to meet with me last week. 

I also want to thank Secretary Salazar; it would be a great privilege to work for 

a man whom I deeply respect and admire. It would also be a true honor to work 

on behalf of and with the thousands of dedicated men and women within the Department of Interior. 

Being in this room today brings back many fond memories of the time when I 

worked for Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. It would be a pleasure to have the 

opportunity to work with so many familiar and respected colleagues again. 

I was born on the edge of the Rocky Mountains in Boulder, Colorado, and raised 

by Korean immigrant parents who found their way to that great state like so many 

other pioneers, with dreams of the freedom that this nation promises and of a better 

life for their family. Like so many other Westerners, I grew up reaping the benefits 

of the lands and waters managed by our federal government. My dad first taught 

me how to bait-fish for trout in Lake Granby, managed by the Bureau of Reclamation; as a Girl Scout, I camped out and told ghost stories under the starry skies in 

Rocky Mountain National Park; and in high school, I helped build a section of the 

Continental Divide Trail, which is in part managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This tapestry of lands—the backdrop of my childhood—has influenced me and 

my values throughout my life. 

My background taught me the importance of sustainable use of our resources, the 

protection of the most special places within our nation, and the need to balance protection of those special places with the needs of local communities. With these values, I have worked in a variety positions thorough my career. Early on, I worked 

to inspire young people about our natural world as a high school teacher of Earth 

Sciences in the public school system in New York City and later as a consultant 

to the National Park Service in New England. During my tenure as a Legislative 

Assistant to Senator Campbell, I worked in and with both political parties, negotiating collaborative approaches in legislation that included the Presidio Trust, the 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, and the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. And most recently, I have served as a grantmaker for two 

of the largest charitable foundations in the country—first at the Hewlett Foundation 

and now currently with the Packard Foundation. 
13 

Over the past eleven years, I have managed hundreds of grants and millions of 

dollars focused on conservation issues in the North American West. In particular, 

I have sought opportunities to support a broad array of conservation voices, including the voices of Native Americans, hunters and anglers, faith-based coalitions and 

environmental justice organizations. Over time, I have come to believe that the most 

durable and successful conservation policies are those that are created with broad 

input, including local knowledge to create place-based solutions that ultimately promote both the biological sustainability of natural systems as well as the economic 

viability of local communities. I have also worked diligently to create accountability 

within my grantmaking—developing clear strategic plans with performance metrics 

that can be monitored and evaluated over time for their effectiveness. 

I believe that the Department of the Interior is presently facing many critical 

challenges. These challenges include issues of accountability and fiscal management, 

educating the public about the importance of public lands and resources, and understanding and reacting proactively to the impacts of climate change. With these challenges comes an enormous amount of opportunity and responsibility. The Department must bring a new level of transparency, efficiency and effectiveness to its 

work. In addition, it must ensure broad public input into the decision-making process. It must also involve a new generation of leaders looking both to discover their 

country’s natural, cultural and historical heritage and to help them find a place in 

building the Department’s future legacy. Finally, the Department must provide economic opportunities for local communities through the sustainable use of our public 

lands, including alternative energy generation and transmission. 

So I would like to end by coming back to my beginnings. From the first time I 

hooked a rainbow trout with my Dad, I was a beneficiary of the bounty of our nation’s rich natural heritage. If confirmed, I hope to continue the legacy of this bounty by providing for the sustainable use and management of the Department’s lands 

and waters for the benefit of all the people of this great country. 

Thank you again for the honor of being here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement. 

Mr. Connor, we are glad to hear your statement. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CONNOR, NOMINEE TO BE COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, 

and members of the committee. I am honored to appear before you 

today as President Obama’s nominee to be the Commissioner of the 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

As I mentioned earlier, I am fortunate to be joined by my wonderful wife and my kids and my parents, and needless to say, without their love and support over the years, I would not be in this 

position, and for that I am very grateful. 

As most of you know, I am in a unique position relative to most 

nominees, having spent the last 8 years serving on the staff of this 

committee. Given that background, I hope you will indulge me a 

brief comment on my tenure here. In short, these years have been 

the highlight of my professional career. During that time, I have 

been privileged to work with and for individuals who represent the 

most positive aspects of public service. Notwithstanding competing 

interests, my colleagues have demonstrated time and again a remarkable ability to stay focused on an overriding goal, and that is 

to address this country’s energy and natural resources challenges 

in a manner reflecting good public policy. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, they follow your example. 

Similarly, I have had the good fortune to work with high-quality 

professionals on the other side of the aisle. In the area of water policy, we have worked closely together and we have agreed much 

more than we have disagreed. But even in those instances in which 
14 

we did not share similar views, we typically found sufficient common ground to make progress on those issues. If confirmed, I look 

forward to continuing that approach in new position. 

Finally, I cannot do justice in conveying the value of the support 

and the friendships that exist on the committee and in your personal office, Mr. Chairman. Through both good and difficult times, 

I have benefited by witnessing the strength, intellect, modesty, and 

good humor by which you and my colleagues have dealt with personal and professional challenges during the past 8 years. I have 

learned a lot in the process, and I will miss working here, Mr. 

Chairman. Thanks to both you and my colleagues for the opportunities provided on this committee. 

I am now afforded an incredible opportunity to be part of President Obama’s administration and to work with Secretary Salazar 

and the talented team he is putting together at the Department of 

the Interior. I am excited at the prospect but recognize the enormous challenges ahead in addressing water issues facing the 17 

western States. 

Taking the helm of the Bureau of Reclamation, is a monumental 

task. As a New Mexican, one who understands the importance of 

water in the West, it is a job that I will relish, if I am confirmed. 

Water is a recurring part of my family’s history. My maternal 

grandfather was an original member of Taos Pueblo’s water rights 

task force. My paternal grandfather was part of the construction 

crews that built the aqueduct tunnels delivering water to New 

York City out of the Catskill Mountains. One of my great grandfathers was seasonally employed cleaning ditches for an irrigation 

district in southern Colorado. 

In my written statement, I have outlined my qualifications, as 

well as some thoughts and the key issues facing the Bureau of Reclamation and the need to work with all the different constituencies 

that are involved 

If I have learned nothing else on this committee, though, it is the 

value of brevity, so I will end my statement there, and I will be 

available to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CONNOR, NOMINEE TO BE COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and members of the Committee, I am 

honored to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee to be the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am fortunate to be joined today by my 

wife Shari, our two children Matthew and Gabriela, and my parents, Carl and Bea 

Connor. Needless to say, without their love and support through the years, I would 

not be in the position I am today. For that, I am grateful. 

As most of you know, I am in a unique position relative to most nominees, having 

spent the last 8 years serving on the staff of this Committee. Given that background, I hope you’ll indulge me a brief comment on my tenure here. In short, these 

years have been the highlight of my professional career. During this time, I have 

been privileged to work with and for, individuals who represent the most positive 

aspects of public service. Notwithstanding competing interests, my colleagues have 

demonstrated time and again, a remarkable ability to stay focused on an overriding 

goal—addressing the country’s energy and natural resource challenges in a manner 

reflecting good public policy. Simply put Mr. Chairman, they follow your example. 

Similarly, I have had the good fortune to work with high-quality professionals on 

the other side of the aisle. In the area of water policy, we have worked closely together and have agreed much more than we have disagreed. But even in those instances in which we did not share similar views, we typically found sufficient com-
15 

mon ground to make progress. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing that approach in my new position. 

Finally, I cannot do justice in conveying the value of the support and the friendships that exist on the Committee and in your personal office, Mr. Chairman. 

Through both good and difficult times, I have benefited by witnessing the strength, 

intellect, modesty, and good humor, by which you and my colleagues have dealt with 

the personal and professional challenges arising during the past 8 years. I will miss 

working here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, to both you and my colleagues, for the opportunities provided me here. 

I am now afforded an incredible opportunity to be a part of President Obama’s 

administration, and to work with Secretary Salazar and the talented team he is putting together at the Interior Department. I am excited at the prospect but recognize 

the enormous challenges ahead in addressing water issues facing the seventeen 

western states. Similar to energy, water is fundamental to the economic well-being 

of the West. Its use, of course, has enormous implications for the environment. We 

have not always struck the right balance between these important and sometimes 

competing interests. If confirmed, I will continue efforts to find that balance, and 

to do so as efficiently as possible. 

Taking the helm of the Bureau of Reclamation is a monumental task. As a New 

Mexican, one who understands the importance of water in the West, it is a job that 

I will relish. Water is a recurring part of my family history. My maternal grandfather was an original member of Taos Pueblo’s water rights task force. My paternal 

grandfather was part of the construction crews that built the aqueduct tunnels delivering water to New York City out of the Catskill Mountains. And one of my greatgrandfathers was seasonally employed cleaning ditches for an irrigation district in 

Southern Colorado. I have been lucky in my career to carry on a family tradition 

associated with water. 

As for my qualifications, I am confident that my background as an engineer and 

lawyer and my experience in the private sector and in government have prepared 

me well for this position. First, I understand the issues facing the Bureau of Reclamation. Drought, climate change, aging infrastructure, increasing population, environmental needs, and site security are all issues that drive a great deal of Reclamation’s actions these days. We have made tremendous progress in this Committee in establishing the programs necessary to confront these issues. It is my hope 

that the Senate will now allow me to work on the implementation side. 

Second, I am familiar with the talented staff at the Bureau of Reclamation and 

I have a general understanding of how the organization functions. At the same time, 

I have a perspective that is external to the organization which should enable me 

to assess its operations objectively and offer a different view on how to improve the 

agency’s mission. 

Finally, I am fully aware that the key to making progress on critical water and 

hydropower issues is to work cooperatively and openly with the different constituencies involved in these issues. The states, water users, power users, environmental 

community, Indian tribes, scientists, and several Federal agencies, all have an important role to play. Progress on seemingly intractable issues will only come through 

a cooperative effort based on a fundamental recognition of the legitimate interests 

of each of these stakeholders and a serious commitment to achieving long-term certainty in water use and allocation. Without that commitment, water policy will continue to be formulated in the courtrooms rather than the negotiating table. 

Of course, the Congress will be at the center of any problem-solving actions which 

involve the Bureau of Reclamation. As I’ve already acknowledged, I have a deep respect for this institution and look forward to working closely with Members and 

staff to address the water and energy challenges facing their constituents. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address my nomination. I will be happy to respond to your questions at the appropriate time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your 

great statements. As I said in my opening statement, I compliment 

the President on all of your nominations. I think he has chosen 

very well, and obviously in the case of Mike Connor, the Obama administration’s gain is our committee’s loss. I have made that point 

to many people as well. 

But at this point, let me call on other members, Senator Murkowski first, to see if she has questions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
16 

Let us start with you, Mr. Connor. I will do the easy ones first. 

We have had some very interesting conversations here at the committee as we talk about renewable energy concepts and implementation on a broader scale and the recognition that water is a very, 

very, very key component. Regardless of the energy source that we 

are talking about, whether it is solar or nuclear or wind, you have 

got to have the water. 

From your perspective, if confirmed there at the Bureau of Reclamation, how do you see the issues of climate change playing out 

within the Bureau and your ability to analyze the available data, 

the impact on the water resources? How do you see that kind of 

integration, if you will? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think there are two parts of the way the Bureau 

of Reclamation can play a role with respect to climate change and 

the challenges facing this country. I think, first and foremost, the 

Bureau of Reclamation has a role to play with respect to water conservation which, as we know, equals energy conservation. So the 

Bureau of Reclamation, in improving its operations, helping its customers improve their operations, has a role to play to enhancing 

energy efficiency in this country through water conservation applications. 

I think also the Bureau of Reclamation, given its facilities, its 

land, its access to the infrastructure, has a role to play in deployment of renewable energy technologies, and I would like to see opportunities to integrate renewable energy opportunities into Reclamation’s operations. That may help us use some of the hydropower resources that the Bureau generates, put more of that on the 

grid if we can integrate renewable energy into Reclamation’s operations itself. So I think both of those are part of the equation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Ms. Suh, let me ask you. There is a great deal of conversation 

around here about our reliance on foreign sources of oil and the 

vulnerability that brings us as a Nation when we talk about our 

energy security. When we are talking about alternative energy 

technologies, though, we recognize that we are very, very heavily 

reliant on minerals that are found overseas. We are 100 percent 

import-reliant for the rare earths used in hybrid vehicles. We are 

56 percent import-reliant for the silicone that is found in the solar 

panels. We are 91 percent import-reliant for the platinum that we 

need for the fuel cell catalysts. 

Are you concerned that we are potentially risking exchanging our 

reliance on foreign oil for a similar reliance on foreign minerals? 

What policies do you see at the Department of the Interior that can 

address what I perceive to be an ever-increasing risk of security? 

Ms. SUH. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for that great question. 

Certainly I believe that both President Obama and Secretary 

Salazar have made it clear that they are very serious about energy 

independence for this country, and what energy independence, obviously, requires is both the continued and responsible development 

of domestic resources as well as the additional development of alternative resources again from domestic production itself. 

Having not been a part of the Department of the Interior yet, I 

am not entirely aware of all of the issues related to both the do-
17 

mestic energy production as well as mineral production on our public lands, but certainly, if confirmed, I look forward to getting up 

to speed quickly and working with you and the members of this 

committee on this important issue moving forward. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I do think it is an important issue, and I 

think it is one that is often overlooked. As Mr. Sandalow knows, 

you focused on that with your book, Freedom from Oil, recognizing 

that this dependency puts us in a very difficult, a very awkward 

spot at times. I have suggested that it is very easy for us as a Nation to move down that same path with natural gas, although we 

are seeing some very impressive opportunities and developments 

here domestically with natural gas. 

But when it comes to the minerals, I think that we have kind 

of closed our eyes on that as an issue. Maybe we do not have a policy. Maybe it is a policy by default. But I would look forward to an 

opportunity to discuss that with you at some length later. 

Mr. Sandalow, I want to ask you. You have made some statements in not only your book but in other places about our reliance 

on foreign sources of oil. I guess I want to ask you if your concern 

is, as we consider policies to reduce oil consumption, do you believe 

that we should do everything possible to reduce oil consumption or 

reduce foreign oil consumption? Because that is a concern for me. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Thank you very much, Senator. It is a very important question. A reliance on foreign oil is an enormous national 

security threat to our Nation and that is something that President 

Obama and Secretary Chu have made clear. It is certainly a threat 

that I take very seriously and that I have written about. 

I think our reliance on oil broadly in our transportation fleet is 

a threat as well. 96 percent of the energy in our cars and trucks 

today comes from this one source, which is oil. Now, oil is a very 

important fuel. It is a high-quality fuel. But I think our dependence 

to that extent exposes our country to a variety of problems, including national security problems, economic problems, and environmental problems. So my own view would be that we need to diversify the fuel mix in our auto fleet. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. In transportation. 

Mr. SANDALOW. That is correct. Biofuels and electricity would be 

two other places that I think we should look in particular, along 

with natural gas which, as you point out, we have got abundant 

supplies of natural gas in this country which could help to fuel our 

vehicles. I visited Buenos Aires recently, and there the taxi cabs 

drive on natural gas. That is the type of thing that we should be 

looking at in this country as well. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, my time has run out. I have 

got a couple more questions, but I will defer to my colleagues and 

then come back for a second. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett. 

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

I thank you all and congratulate you all on your willingness to 

provide public service. You will find there are days when you may 

wonder about the wisdom of your decision, but I think looking back 

on it as an overall situation, you will be grateful for the opportunity. 
18 

Mr. Connor, we have a number of projects in Utah. That, I think, 

means we will be having a lot of conversations with you, and we 

are grateful to you for your willingness to take on this challenge. 

Mr. Poneman, as I look around the committee, I am probably the 

only one here who has served in the executive branch in previous 

administrations. My observation is the Deputy Secretary is the one 

who has to run the building. I simply share that with you. The Secretary deals with the policy levels at the top, but the person who 

is responsible to make sure that everybody gets along, that everybody meets his or her deadlines, that things happen and they 

work—it is an enormously significant administrative challenge. I 

know you will have an Assistant Secretary for Administration, but 

basically the guy who has to run the building is the Deputy Secretary. I hope you will exercise your management muscles as well 

as your analytic muscles to give Secretary Chu all of the help you 

possibly can in that area. Just a bit of gratuitous advice, which you 

are more than free to ignore, but I could not pass up the opportunity to offer it. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BENNETT. Ms. Suh, I guess you anticipated that I would 

talk to you. Secretary Salazar went to Utah on the 1st of May to 

talk about various items. The 1st of May is an important date because that is the date that David Hayes established, in responses 

to my questions with respect to his confirmation, that there would 

be a preliminary analysis for the review of the 77 leases that the 

Secretary canceled. Unfortunately, the press reported the Secretary 

said, well, we could not meet the May 1st deadline because we did 

not have David Hayes. There have been statements, well, it is all 

Senator Bennett’s fault because he is keeping us from getting the 

people that we need. 

So I would like to talk about that for a minute. I have repeatedly 

told the Secretary that I would be happy to lift my hold on David 

Hayes after we have seen some progress on the review, but there 

has been no progress, simply the public statements that somehow 

I am responsible for the fact that the Department is not doing anything. 

Now, David Hayes came to visit me in my office after we had this 

conversation and he made a personal commitment to me that the 

review would proceed with or without him. Now, he said if it was 

with him, if he could be confirmed, it would proceed more rapidly, 

but that it would proceed. He understood the current dynamic, recognized that he could not lead the team if he were not confirmed, 

but that it would go forward. 

It was not just in conversation. I have the documents that he 

sent me, and he says—and I will quote—‘‘The review will proceed 

in a disciplined and timely way. The administrative record will be 

provided to all members of the review team as soon as it can be 

made available and before it is required by the court. Assuming the 

record can be made available within the next couple of weeks, 

every attempt will be made to review the record, conduct a site 

visit, and complete relevant interviews by May 1st. The review 

team will seek to complete its work and provide a report to the Secretary by May 29th.’’ 
19 

Now, here is the point where you come in. Composition of the review team. If confirmed, David J. Hayes will have overall responsibility for undertaking the review of the 77 parcels that were withdrawn from the Utah lease sale. Pending Mr. Hayes’ confirmation, 

the review team will consist of the acting Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management and Budget and acting Directors of the BLM 

and the National Park Service and their designees. The acting Solicitor, Art Gary, will provide legal support to the extent needed. 

Now, that does not indicate to me that the thing cannot go forward without David Hayes. It is a pretty clear statement that there 

was every intention that it would go forward. None of that has happened. 

So I come to your statement that you say that we need to have 

more transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness, and there is nothing I would like more, with respect to these 77 leases, than more 

transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness. Assuming that your confirmation will go through—and I see no reason why it should not— 

you will take over the responsibility of this, and I would hope we 

could get from you a pledge here today that you will complete the 

commitment that was made to me by Mr. Hayes on Interior Department stationery. Since it is on the official stationery of the Interior Department, I assume the commitment was made by the Department, not Mr. Hayes. 

Now, is that something you are comfortable in undertaking? 

Ms. SUH. Yes, sir, it is. Obviously, I understand how important 

this issue is to you, Senator, and certainly, if confirmed, I would 

be more than happy to work with you and your staff personally in 

providing you the details that you are looking for. Obviously, I 

have not been at the Department of the Interior and so am not 

aware of the relevant facts with respect to this issue, but certainly, 

if confirmed, again I would be more than happy to work with you 

personally. 

Senator BENNETT. I understand that, and my plea is not necessarily that you work with me personally, although I will maintain my continued interest in the matter. My plea is that you will 

work within the Department to get the Department to keep the 

commitment that they have made to me in writing toward which 

they have made zero progress ever since the commitment was 

made. Since you will replace the acting Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget and take the lead on this, I appreciate your 

commitment here. In my view—I agree with you absolutely—we 

need more transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness, and this 

issue is a very good place to start. 

Ms. SUH. Understood, sir. Thank you. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. I pass, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sandalow, let us go back to you here. A project that we are 

following with great interest and hoping to encourage along is one 

that would ultimately deliver the vast quantities of natural gas 

from Alaska’s Northern Slope down through the State, across 
20 

through Canada, and then ultimately to the customers here in the 

Lower 48. Very important not only to my State but really to deliver 

this clean energy source that the country needs. 

I agree with your previous comment that when we look at our 

energy dependency, we can be smarter with how we are using our 

domestic energy sources, and if we can reconfigure our transportation sector, I think that that is a good thing. If we have got good 

stocks of natural gas, that is even better. 

When it comes to the Alaska project, we are working through 

things on our side. It is going slower, unfortunately, than we would 

like. But we have a tendency to kind of focus on the Alaska side 

and may often forget that we have got to go through another country in order for this project to come to fruition. 

What steps would you support, if any, to speed up construction 

of an Alaska natural gas pipeline? What steps should the Government be taking to ensure that Canada settles its first nation’s 

issues, clears the right-of-way, permits construction of an Alaska 

natural gas pipeline, working with the Canadian government? 

What do you see as kind of that critical path forward? 

Mr. SANDALOW. Thank you, Senator. I strongly support the 

points made in the premise of your question, that we need to develop our domestic natural gas resources, need to work closely to 

get those resources to market, and to work closely with our neighbors in Canada on that. I am not familiar with the details of the 

pipeline and the permitting issues and other siting issues, but to 

the extent that the Department of Energy has a role in this, I 

would look forward to working with you and with others to make 

that possible, if confirmed. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It clearly has a role. Again, we have got to 

remember that it is a project that is massive in scope, and it is not 

just working with our Federal agencies and State agencies, but we 

are dealing with Canada as well. So if confirmed, I think you would 

find that that is going to rise to a heightened level of interest. We 

are certainly hopeful that it does. 

Let me ask you a question about a comment or perhaps several 

comments that I understand you have made as it relates to offshore oil production. I am told that you made a comment that was 

quoted as saying, ‘‘Offshore drilling is weak. It’s like walking an 

extra 20 feet per day to lose weight.’’ I also understand that you 

have been quoted as saying that offshore drilling should not be 

among the top solutions to America’s energy issues. 

I would like to know if the statements that I have read are an 

accurate representation of your current thinking, and if so or if not, 

what is your thinking on offshore and should it be part of our country’s energy policy? Should it be part of that mix? 

Mr. SANDALOW. I think it should be, Senator. I believe we need 

a comprehensive plan to address our energy challenges, and that 

would include domestic energy production in an environmentally 

appropriate way, and that can include and should include offshore 

drilling where it is appropriate to do so. 

The comments I made were in the context of an overall global energy challenge, and in that context, I think we need to adopt measures such as alternative fuels and fuel efficiency in our vehicle fleet 

and simply focusing on one aspect of the problem is never going to 
21 

be sufficient. But I very much support environmentally responsible 

domestic drilling. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So it is part of that mix. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Very much so. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. 

Then last for you, Mr. Poneman, an issue about nuclear and 

Yucca Mountain. It has been made very clear by the Obama administration that they have no intention of pursuing the used nuclear 

fuel repository at Yucca which, of course, DOE has been focusing 

on for over 20 years. I think that this has caused more than just 

a little bit of confusion within this committee and with other Members of Congress since it comes before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has even had a chance to review the Yucca Mountain license application. 

The administration’s position has implications not only for licensing of current and future nuclear powerplants, but also for the disposition of defense program waste. 

So I am curious as to your views relating to the Yucca Mountain 

project. The license review is currently underfunded both at the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and at DOE. So I guess the question is, regardless of what decisions are made with regard to the 

Yucca Mountain project, the license review efforts that could provide, I think, invaluable regulatory, scientific insights that will inform future nuclear waste policy—do you think that these should 

be fully funded at both agencies whether it is NRC or DOE while 

we continue to debate up here about the future of nuclear fuel? 

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Obviously, the Yucca decision was made previously, and I was 

not privy to that decision. But I think it speaks to the larger point 

of the role of nuclear moving forward and the extent to which it 

is critical that we resolve the issues surrounding the back end of 

the fuel cycle in order to enable that to occur. In that respect, I 

have not reviewed the 8,600–page filing that went to the NRC, but 

I agree with the premise of your question, that there may be extremely valuable information contained therein which we could all 

go to school on in terms of figuring out a smart path forward for 

the back end of the fuel cycle. 

In this respect, what I have discussed with Secretary Chu is his 

commitment, as soon as possible, to stand up a blue ribbon commission that is going to look at the question of the disposition of 

spent fuel in the context of the whole international nuclear fuel 

cycle and to make sure that whatever learning we can derive from 

Yucca is applied to a solid basis going forward to have a politically 

sustainable and technically sound approach to spent fuel management. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you just very quickly on that 

because this whole concept of the blue ribbon commission coming 

forward—you have mentioned, I think it was, political sustainability. How do you think with a blue ribbon commission we will 

be able to keep the political emotion out of this debate that we 

have seen swirling around around Yucca? Why would the blue ribbon commission be any different and somehow insulated from the 

politics of what we are dealing with here? Any ideas on that? 
22 

Mr. PONEMAN. Senator, I am not naive to think that something 

that has engendered this much emotion will suddenly become 

merely antiseptic. But as someone once famously said, everyone is 

entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their 

own facts. I would hope that with distinguished Americans representing a variety of perspectives, scientific, political, industrial, 

and others pull together a kind of approach that you often see with 

the National Academy of Sciences and so on, that it is possible perhaps to lance the boil, bring science to the table, and have people 

of known credibility and stature help us reason through this to a 

position where we could come to some kind of closure. Not every 

blue ribbon commission has had that outcome. Some have. I would 

work as hard as I could to support the Secretary and, of course, 

work with you and this committee to make sure that is the kind 

of panel we are able to put together. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I think it would be critical to its success if 

it is advanced. I certainly hope that you would agree with Secretary Chu’s comments that nuclear must be part of our energy solution in this country and work toward that end. 

Mr. PONEMAN. Senator, in my private capacity, I have spent a lot 

of time reading about this and reviewing demand curves looking 

out many decades. For me, I think perhaps one of the most persuasive was the MIT study in 2003. I have personally not seen any of 

these studies that are able to close the gap in terms of where we 

want to be with greenhouse gas emissions without a significant deployment of nuclear energy. I know for a fact, because I have discussed it with him, that Secretary Chu supports the role of nuclear 

in an energy mix. Obviously, we get a fifth of our electricity from 

it, 70 percent of our non-carbon-emitting energy. It must be in my 

view, my personal view, part of the equation for a low carbon energy future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like 

to congratulate each of the four nominees and welcome you here, 

welcome your families. 

Mr. Sandalow, thank you very much for taking the time to visit 

with me last evening. 

Mr. Connor, I will tell you that Gabby, sitting behind you, has 

been the most welcome member of the committee. She has been 

very attentive, paid attention to everything, and has done a great 

job in representing your family very well. I have a good look at her 

right there and she is smiling and doing a terrific job. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. I did have a question, Mr. Connor, because 

you have handled a number of complex water settlements during 

your time in public service, both as an employee of the Department 

of the Interior and as counsel for this committee. I wanted to visit 

a little about that because probably you know better than most, if 

not all, the implications of both interstate agreements and intrastate agreements and how that plays out. It can affect the supply, 

the allocation, the use of water, and in the Rocky Mountains water 

is a big issue for us. So I wanted to talk to you also about how 

these effects can be amplified when there is an agreement that is 

blessed by an act of the U.S. Congress. 
23 

So with that in mind, I would like to ask you a few related questions about your views and philosophy on negotiating some of these 

settlements from an intrastate as well as an interstate agreement. 

Do you agree that the best approach to dealing with complex 

interstate or regional issues involving the use or allocation of water 

in the West is through negotiation and settlement among the 

stakeholders as opposed to, say, litigation? 

Mr. CONNOR. Oh, absolutely, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. If the parties with potentially adverse or conflicting interests decide to take that approach, negotiation and settlement, what importance then do you place on the inclusion of all 

of the possibly affected parties? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think all affected parties ultimately need to be 

part of the process. Sometimes, though, quite frankly, progress is 

made by the parties most affected whose rights are at stake, get 

together, figure out a regime of water allocation that fits their 

needs, and then it is taken to a broader audience. I have seen 

progress come about both ways through small groups working outwards. Ultimately, the larger implications are seen by other parties—they are brought to the table and those issues can be resolved. 

So I think we can work this in a lot of different ways, but I think 

ultimately all parties with a legitimate interest are going to have 

their say and they have got to be dealt with in some way, shape, 

or form. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Sandalow, I had a series of questions on oil and gas. I think 

Senator Murkowski asked those. Nuclear. I think you asked a 

number of those as well. 

We also had a chance yesterday to talk a little bit about coal and 

the importance of clean coal technology. As we discussed, coal is a 

very abundant, affordable and reliable secure source of energy. Wyoming has more than 1.4 trillion tons of coal. It is enough coal for 

the United States for centuries to come. I believe coal can be a very 

clean energy source. 

Do you believe the U.S. has a responsibility to take the lead in 

developing clean coal technology, as we know that coal is going to 

continue to be used across not just our Nation but across the 

world? 

Mr. SANDALOW. I do, Senator, very strongly, and I know that 

President Obama and Secretary Chu share that view. 

Senator BARRASSO. Then how would you recommend we move 

forward with respect to clean coal technology? We talked a little bit 

about carbon capture and sequestration. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Senator, thank you for the chance to visit in your 

office yesterday. I appreciate that greatly. I was told by one of your 

staff there, by the way, that if Wyoming were a country, it would 

be the world’s third largest coal producer. So I am delighted to talk 

about this. 

I strongly believe that we need to move forward on clean coal technology. The $3.4 billion in the Recovery Act, I think, is an important step forward on that. The Department of Energy, I understand, is moving forward to implement spending on that. There is 

further money in Department of Energy budget proposals on this. 
24 

But more broadly, I think this is an area in which we need our 

best scientists, our best engineers, and our best minds working on 

it. In this country, as well as around the world, this is an area that 

is ripe for international cooperation. The best engineers in the 

world can profit greatly from visiting other countries and seeing 

what is happening in projects. There are many different geologies 

around the world, many different technologies, and I think it is an 

area that should be and I hope will be a top priority for our Government and others in the years ahead. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, did you have additional 

questions? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I do not. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me thank all members for coming to the 

hearing and also the witnesses. I think it has been a useful hearing. 

We will allow until 5 o’clock tomorrow for members to submit 

any additional questions that they would have for the record. If the 

nominees would respond quickly to those questions, if there are 

some submitted, we would appreciate that, and we hope to act 

quickly on your nominations and recommend action by the full Senate. 

Thank you again, and that will conclude our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(25) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSE OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Question 1. Many questions remain as to DOE’s interpretation of Title 17 provisions from the 2005 Energy Policy Act, specifically on the superiority of rights and 

cross-default issues for projects with multiple owners or creditors. 

Given Secretary Chu’s desire to issue loan guarantees in the next month or two, 

do you believe the loan guarantee office is doing a satisfactory job of interacting 

with applicants to make sure that their questions and concerns are addressed? 

Answer. Secretary Chu has made the loan guarantee program a top priority, and 

has pushed hard to streamline the program and to make it more responsive to applicants. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary and our Loan Guarantee 

Program staff to make sure that the Department is addressing questions and concerns of applicants in a timely manner. 

RESPONSE OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 1. As you may know, Congress passed a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to provide the auto industry low cost loans to 

retool plants for the production of advance technology vehicles. What are your views 

of this program, and when do you expect the agency to issue its first loan? 

Answer. I support the Section 136 program and believe that it can be an important tool to create jobs and invest in technologies that will help reduce carbon emissions and lower our dependence on foreign oil. As I understand it, the Department’s 

goal continues to be to issue loans in the summer and, if confirmed, I look forward 

to working with the Secretary to meet that goal. 

RESPONSES OF DANIEL B. PONEMAN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CORKER

Question 1. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative program has 3 competitively 

awarded small business contracts in place to perform activities for the program. Yet, 

the program has not fully utilized those contracts. Each GTRI small business contract has a ceiling of $100 million, for a total of $300 million, but only $5.7 million 

has been applied to those contracts to date. What is your opinion of GTRI using 

small business contracts? Do you think they should be used more? Please explain. 

Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the GTRI program contracts, but 

I do believe that small businesses have an important role to play in providing services to the Department. If confirmed, I look forward to examining this issue and 

working with you to ensure that small businesses are used appropriately. 

Question 2. It has been brought to my attention that in recent decades, the Department of Energy has greatly increased its oversight of the contractors responsible 

for managing and operating (M&O) the national laboratories under M&O contracts. 

Concerns have been raised to me that as a result, decision making within the Department may have slowed, and support organizations seemingly have more authority and less accountability than the mission organizations, and the amount of oversight conducted by the federal staff of the Department’s contractors is not commensurate with other government/contractor relationships. 

In your opinion, has increased DOE oversight of the contractors responsible for 

managing and operating the national laboratories had an impact on the timeliness 
26 

of decision making within the Department, and is the relationship consistent with 

other government/contractor relationships? 

Would you be willing to assess the way in which the Department’s various support organizations, such as the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), Office 

of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM), CFO, General Counsel, etc., 

support the Department’s mission organizations and determine if changes are necessary to ensure that this model is consistent with the original government-owned 

contractor-operated (GOCO) model of laboratory governance, which was originally 

designed to bring the best possible scientific and management talent and privatesector business practices to the laboratories. And, if changes are deemed necessary, 

would you be willing to make the appropriate adjustments? 

Answer. I believe that accountability and oversight of the Department’s operating 

facilities and national laboratories are vital to ensuring that the Department meets 

its mission goals. As a matter of principle, I believe that any effective contractual 

arrangement must include clear mission statement, scope of work, and milestones, 

that the contractor must be empowered to perform without undue micromanagement, but with full accountability and regular oversight of performance deliverables 

and quality. The Secretary has made improved management of the Department one 

of his priorities. In that spirit, if confirmed I would certainly be willing to examine 

the issues you raise and make appropriate adjustments. 

RESPONSES OF DAVID B. SANDALOW TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

CLEAN ENERGY

Question 1. In attempting to address global climate change, a great deal of faith 

has been put into the ability of the United States to advance cleaner technologies, 

and assure their deployment to the developing world. 

What role do you see DOE playing in clean technology transfer, particularly to 

the developing world? 

Answer. I believe that DOE can play an important role in promoting cooperation 

on clean energy technologies with the developing world. I understand that the Department has ongoing energy partnerships with its counterparts in many countries, 

including in developing countries. If confirmed I would work to build on this base 

of existing relationships to help improve processes and procedures with respect to 

transfer and deployment of clean energy technologies. 

GREEN JOBS

Question 2. In recent months, many have asserted that the ‘‘green jobs’’ sought 

through a number of DOE programs, as well as the Stimulus and other measures, 

are incapable of being exported. 

Given the current level of importation associated with batteries, wind farm components, and turbines for geothermal steam, do you believe that so-called ‘‘green 

jobs’’ are any less susceptible to off-shoring than traditional, non-green jobs? 

Answer. In many cases, yes. For example, improving efficiency in our buildings— 

the lowest hanging fruit in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering energy bills for consumers—offers great potential to create jobs that cannot 

be outsourced. I believe that investments in research, development and deployment 

of clean energy technologies can help to create good new jobs in the United States. 

Restoring U.S. technological leadership in these areas is an important component 

of ensuring that clean energy jobs of the future are U.S. jobs. 

NATURAL GAS

Question 3. Mr. Sandalow, from your writings and published articles it is very 

clear how you feel about oil production, but it is a bit less clear how you feel about 

production of domestic natural gas. In your article Ending Oil Dependence for the 

Brookings Institute, you argued against gasoline as a transportation fuel, and instead favor electric vehicles and biofuels. How do you feel about compressed natural 

gas as a transportation fuel? 

Answer. I believe compressed natural gas can make an important contribution to 

reducing our dependence on oil as a transportation fuel. 

BIOFUELS

Question 4a. I appreciate the candid comments you have made on corn-based 

biofuels and am glad that you recognize the need to develop advanced feedstocks. 
27 

While biofuels are not part of the energy bill that we are currently working on, I 

do have several questions for you on this topic. 

First, do you support the inclusion of promising new feedstocks, such as algae, in 

the Renewable Fuel Standard? Do you believe it is important for the RFS to be technology-neutral? 

Answer. In general I believe that government should set goals and allow the private sector to find the best technological solutions. I am not familiar with specific 

issues surrounding algae feedstocks and the RFS, but would be eager to work with 

you on this if confirmed. 

Question 4b. In the past, you have supported the elimination of the tariff on imported ethanol. Will you continue to support the removal of that tariff if you are 

confirmed as Assistant Secretary? 

Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I would support the President’s position on this issue. As I’ve written, this is a complex issue. 

Question 4c. In ‘‘Freedom From Oil,’’ you also supported a variable subsidy for 

corn-based ethanol production that would range from 70 cents per gallon when oil 

prices are at $40 per barrel, to no subsidy when oil prices rise above $75 per barrel. 

Do you still support this policy? Would you urge the administration to adopt it, 

should you be confirmed? 

Answer. I believe the idea of a variable subsidy is worth consideration. Those specific numbers were offered as an example—I don’t have a view on what schedule, 

if any, would be best. Since I first wrote on this, several experts have approached 

me to point out that rising oil prices are often associated with higher production 

costs for ethanol, arguing that this undercuts the case for a variable subsidy. This 

is an important point that should be analyzed in any future consideration of this 

issue. 

Question 4d. In order to properly evaluate whether biofuels will help reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, do you agree that it is important to measure the lifecycle 

emissions associated with their production and use, including land-use changes and 

other indirect factors? 

Answer. I do. 

BLEND WALL

Question 5a. As you know, the EPA restricts the amount of ethanol that can be 

blended into regular gasoline to 10 percent or less. Annual biofuel production is already on the verge of saturating that limitation, however, and within the next few 

years, the RFS will mandate more biofuel production than can legally be blended 

into the gasoline supply. 

How do you believe this so-called ‘‘blend wall’’ should be addressed? Do you believe that the ethanol content in gasoline can be increased without harming hundreds of billions of dollars worth of vehicles, equipment, and infrastructure? 

Answer. This is an important question that needs to be carefully evaluated. I do 

not have a view at this time about the impact of increased ethanol blends on vehicles and other equipment. 

Question 5b. Will you commit to advising against an increase in the 10 percent 

limit until scientific data proves that no damages will result from such a decision? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will look into this matter and will provide advice to Secretary Chu after consideration of the relevant scientific information. 

Question 5c. Some have likened the ‘‘blend wall’’ to a steeplechase, because this 

issue will arise repeatedly as RFS volumes continue to increase. What strategy will 

you follow to balance the desire to increase biofuel production with the need to protect individual property from harm associated with its use? 

Answer. Again, I think this is an important question that needs to be carefully 

evaluated. If confirmed I will work with you, as well as my colleagues in the Administration to be sure that we consider the issues you raise. 

DOMESTIC OIL

Question 6. Let me ask one clarifying question. You obviously want us to reduce 

oil usage in the transportation sector to make us less dependent on foreign oil 

sources, but market penetration of electric cars will not happen overnight. Shouldn’t 

we be attempting to increase production of domestic oil supplies in the short-run 

to provide a bridge to the era of renewable energy, especially as a transportation 

fuel? Given the estimates of over 100 billion barrels of oil still remaining in America 

from onshore areas like under the Arctic coastal plain, to the OCS off our coasts, 

why shouldn’t we be developing that oil now while we push ahead with renewables 

and alternatives? 
28 

Answer. President Obama has indicated that he is open to increased domestic production as part of a comprehensive energy plan. If confirmed I will work with you 

and with others in the Administration on this important topic. 

TRANSPORTATION

Question 7. You advocate plug-in hybrid vehicles as one of the most effective ways 

for the United States to reduce oil consumption. This seems to leave out the aviation 

and marine industries, which are also large consumers of petroleum-based fuels. 

Which policies would you propose or support to reduce fuel consumption in those 

industries? 

Answer. While cars and trucks account for the lion’s share of our petroleum consumption, you identify an important issue with respect to aviation and marine industries. I strongly support research to develop potential alternatives to oil in these 

sectors, such as biofuels, and ongoing work to improve fuel efficiency. I look forward 

to working with you on these issues if I am confirmed. 

ASIA-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

Question 8. The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate 

(Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Korea, and the United States) works with 

private sector partners to meet goals for energy security, national air pollution reduction, and climate change. The APP has eight private sector task forces working 

on: Aluminum; Buildings and Appliances; Cement; Cleaner Fossil Energy; Coal Mining; Power Generation and Transmission; Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation; and Steel. 

Do you support the previous Administration’s work on the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate? 

a. If yes: If you are confirmed, how will you work to advance the Partnership? 

b. If no: What do you view as an alternative? 

Answer. I believe the Asia-Pacific Partnership can make an important contribution to promoting clean energy and fighting climate change. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the work of the Asia-Pacific Partnership and how best 

to advance it. 

CLEAN ENERGY TRADE

Question 9. Last year USTR and the European Union submitted a proposal to the 

World Trade Organization to remove barriers to international trade in environmental technologies and services. Global trade of the goods covered by the proposal 

totaled approximately $613 billion in 2006, with some WTO members charging duties as high as 70% on certain goods. 

Do you support moving this proposal forward at the WTO? If you are confirmed, 

what role will you play in gathering global support for it? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the proposal and 

how best to advance it. 

STATE-OWNED OIL COMPANIES

Question 10. State-owned oil companies control close to 80% of the world’s estimated 1.2 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves and make up 18 of the world’s 20 

largest oil companies. Beijing is probably one of the most active players in locking 

in resources from around the world. 

Should the United States be concerned by the increasing amount of leverage that 

state-owned oil companies, particularly those from China, have in the international 

oil market? 

Answer. Yes, I share this concern. 

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL NUCLEAR COOPERATION

Question 11. Two weeks ago Ambassador Greg Schulte, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN offices in Vienna and the IAEA, gave a speech on behalf of 

Secretary Chu at the IAEA International Ministerial Conference in Beijing. In this 

speech Ambassador Schulte referenced President Obama’s call for a new framework 

for international civil nuclear cooperation and described the role of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership’s Steering Group in establishing such a framework. I realize that much of the GNEP effort has been refocused on research and development, 

but I would agree with Ambassador Schulte that diplomatic efforts such as the 

GNEP Steering Group play a central role in ensuring the responsible development 

of a safe and secure world-wide nuclear energy enterprise. This is particularly true 
29 

today with so many countries considering new or expanded civilian nuclear power 

programs whether or not the U.S. chooses to remain engaged. 

Can you briefly describe for this Committee the current status of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Steering Group? If you are confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs and Domestic Policy, what steps will you 

take to ensure that the Department of Energy continues to support the Steering 

Group and provides U.S. leadership in this area? 

Answer. I understand that progress was made at the recent Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Steering Group meeting in several areas, including key areas of 

focus for the expert working groups on Reliable Nuclear Fuel Services and Infrastructure Development. If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Chu and other Administration officials to determine the best approach for advancing the Administration’s nonproliferation and energy priorities through participation in the international activities of GNEP. 

OFFSHORE PRODUCTION

Question 12a. Last summer, with oil prices well above $100 per barrel, you criticized the push to increase offshore production. You stated that any gains in offshore 

production would be outweighed by an increase in environmental risk. That argument minimizes the importance of decades of safety improvements and technological 

advancement, and it also relies on outdated resource estimates. Is it fair to make 

such an assessment without even knowing the full extent of our nation’s offshore 

resources? 

Answer. I strongly agree that safety improvements and technological advances 

have reduced the environmental risk in offshore drilling during the past few decades. I believe in assessing our nation’s offshore resources as part of a comprehensive domestic energy plan. 

Question 12b. Do you think that restricting domestic development will force lower 

domestic oil consumption? 

Answer. No. 

Question 12c. If domestic oil consumption remains about the same as it is today, 

does the fact that most of our oil will come from foreign production, outside of American environmental regulation, make it more environmentally-responsible? 

Answer. No. 

Question 12d. As we consider policies to reduce oil consumption—which you might 

call ‘‘freedom from oil’’—do you believe that we should do everything possible to first 

ensure our freedom from foreign oil? 

Answer. I believe our dependence on foreign oil is a very serious problem. In part 

because oil is a fungible product traded on a global market, I believe the most fundamental problem is our near-total dependence on oil in our cars and trucks. If most 

cars and trucks also ran on other fuels—such as electricity, biofuels and natural 

gas—our dependence on foreign oil would decline dramatically. 

Question 12e. Would you prefer the price of oil to be $50 per barrel, or $100 per 

barrel? 

Answer. $50. 

RESPONSES OF RHEA S. SUH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

ABANDONED WELL CLEAN-UP IN ALASKA

Question 1. As you set about producing an FY11 budget I would just like to encourage you to consider building additional funding into the BLM base for the cleanup of federally produced abandoned oil wells in Arctic Alaska. Back in the late 

1970s and early 80s there was an exploratory program in NPR-A conducted under 

contract for the government and there is an estimated $150 million worth of work 

needed to better cap those abandoned wells. I appreciate the $9 million in the FY09 

budget for such cleanup efforts, but I hope that you will generously fund such efforts 

in the future since the responsibility clearly is with the government. 

Do you have any general comments on abandoned well cleanup and how you feel 

it fits in your priorities for future funding? 

Answer. I understand that the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) share your concerns about the importance of cleaning up 

‘‘legacy’’ wells on Alaska’s North Slope, and the urgency of this effort because of the 

risks posed by increasing coastal erosion. I am advised that the BLM has recently 

completed remediation of the Atigaru well, and that the next priority is remediation 

of the Drew Point well during the winter of 2009-2010. I also understand that the 

BLM is funding the Drew Point well remediation through the American Recovery 
30 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and that for this reason, the President’s Budget Request for FY 2010 does not include funding for the Drew Point project. Although 

I cannot make budget commitments on behalf of the Administration, if I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget, I will work 

closely with the Secretary to assure that this program is examined carefully as the 

Department formulates future budget requests. 

NORTH SLOPE SCIENCE INITIATIVE

Question 2. Back about 5 years ago a number of federal agencies—including BLM 

and the F&WS—joined with Alaska state agencies and local governments to create 

a North Slope Science Initiative to find funding for scientific studies of importance 

for resource development in Arctic Alaska. But the effort has never been built into 

the budget base. As you work on your FY11 budget, I hope you will find a permanent place for the NSSI. My general question is, what are your priorities for scientific funding in your Department’s budget process? 

Answer. Like President Obama, I believe that understanding of science, technology, and innovation will be key to strengthening our economy and forming policy 

that will work for the American people. The President has called for a national 

strategy to nurture and sustain a culture of scientific innovation. If confirmed as 

Assistant Secretary at the Department of the Interior, I will commit to a fair and 

balanced approach to consideration of funding needs, including science. 

PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT

Question 3. One of the often-repeated frustrations by many Democratic members 

on this Committee over the previous eight years were the close ties some nominees 

for the Department of the Interior had with the oil, gas, or other commodity industries. 

Ms. Suh, you have very close ties to a number of environmental and preservation 

groups. In fact, according to your background papers, you were a program officer 

and manager for two foundations that provided significant financial resources to a 

number of advocacy groups who have and likely will continue to attempt to drive 

changes in federal land policy and federal land management. As a manager, you 

helped to make decisions on which groups and what projects received funding form 

the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. More specifically, you worked on the environmental programs at these foundations. 

While you were not a lobbyist, you funded organizations to lobby and are thus, 

in my mind, an accessory to lobbying the very agency you have been nominated to 

work within. 

I think that all Members of this Committee understand that foundation funding 

is critical to the survival of many of the advocacy groups like the Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, or the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, or the Idaho 

Conservation League. 

At the same time, I think that all Members also understand that many of these 

foundations provide important funding to many other groups, universities, and even 

local governments to help them respond to new laws, regulations, and demands. 

Ms. Suh—I have a series of questions that I would like you to answer with a simple yes or no answer and then I will get into a couple of questions that will require 

a little more in terms of responding. 

Given the direct financial support you had some responsibility of steering to 

groups that come before the Department of the Interior, do you intend, if confirmed, 

to recuse yourself from meeting with any of the groups that received funding from 

either the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard 

Foundation? More specifically, from the environmental programs at those two foundations? 

Answer. Let me first clarify a point about the funding granted by the two foundations in which I have worked. Both the Hewlett and Packard foundations do not provide funds to organizations for lobbying purposes and are prohibited from doing so 

by the Internal Revenue Service regulations that govern charitable giving. I have 

consulted with the ethics officials at the Department of the Interior, and they have 

informed me that they do not think there would be an appearance of a conflict of 

interest in meeting with groups that have received funding from these foundations. 

As I have stated in my ethics agreement addressed to the designated agency ethics official at the Department of Interior, I will comply fully with the ethics policies 

set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502 and upon confirmation, I will resign from my position as a program manager with the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. In addition, for a period of one year after my resignation, I will not participate personally 
31 

and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which the 

Foundation is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

Question 4a. In March 2005, you participated in an online debate on 

environmentalism with Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. In that online 

forum you said some very interesting things that I would like you to help us understand. First you said: ‘‘Ultimately, I think we all strive for (re)establishing strong 

environmental/conservation values to the point where they are seen as the ‘political 

third rail. . . .’ ’’ 

In making the grants that you made, to what extent were you attempting to fund 

groups that would make environmental values a ‘political third rail’ for those of us 

in congress that are charged with overseeing the Department of the Interior? 

Answer. Let me first underscore the fact that I have the utmost respect for and 

understanding of the importance of the oversight Congress provides for the Department of the Interior. From my time as a Senate staffer for Senator Ben Nighthorse 

Campbell in the 104th Congress, I gained a deep appreciation of this oversight role. 

During my tenure with the Senator, I supported his work on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and did so both from within the Minority party and then, 

after 1995, in the Majority party. From this experience, I gained not only an appreciation of the critical role of Congress in supporting and overseeing the mission of 

the Department of the Interior, but also a unique perspective on the issues that are 

critically important to both parties and to various stakeholders on natural resource 

issues. This experience is the foundation for my beliefs and optimism about conservation and natural resource policy. 

Within the context of this online debate, I was articulating my opinion that environmental politics for the last several decades have become overly partisan and environmental debates seem to devolve too quickly into polarizing positions. These positions often result in stalemate situations where ‘‘winners’’ or ‘‘losers’’ are too often 

chosen by courts. In my remarks, I was not referring to the appropriate and legal 

role Congressional oversight plays in ensuring accountability by federal land management agencies, but was focusing on the sad fact that environmental groups or 

commodity user groups are pigeonholed and categorized in a way (and often by each 

other) that I believe diminishes the real values and needs of our communities. 

Conservation values are broadly held by Americans: we love to hunt and fish, we 

want clean water to drink and air to breathe and we want our children to grow up 

in communities that are vital and sustainable. Conservation debates should explore 

the opportunities growing from these shared values and should help us collectively 

define a better vision for our future. I hope that if confirmed, I can work with the 

Department and Congress to develop new opportunities for proactive and positive 

decisionmaking. 

Question 4b. Can you explain why you wanted Congress to be so skittish about 

addressing environmental values? 

Answer. My discussion points were focused on stakeholder groups, not Congress. 

Specifically, I was encouraging the broader community to be more focused on the 

values that could bring us together rather than on politics that would perpetuate 

divisiveness. 

Question 4c. You also said: ‘‘The whole inside-the-Beltway game has its obvious 

drawbacks right now. However, to be fair, I think that even though things are 

bleak, we have to continue to put up a fight in D.C. There will be huge battles over 

the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act . . . and as we saw from the Arctic debate, we need to make a strong showing, even if we ultimately fail.’’ 

Understanding you said this in 2005 when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House, do you think that the commodity user groups could use some 

foundation support to help them withstand the onslaught of environmental changes 

that have been announced by the Department of the Interior up to this point, as 

well as those that are likely to be announced over the next four years? 

Answer. There are thousands of foundations throughout the country and the 

trustees or benefactors of each foundation determine how to best allocate their charitable dollars. So while I am not in the position to advocate for new categories of 

funding, I do think that it is important for foundation staff to recognize and have 

an appreciation of the broader public debate and of the interests of all stakeholders 

in any given area of focus. 

Question 4d. You also wrote: ‘‘How can you turn something like the politics of environmental protection in Alaska around? Ultimately, I don’t think it is going to be 

by getting more people to walk the halls of Congress—perhaps more people to walk 

the roads of Fairbanks?’’ 

I am curious, what specifically did you find wrong with the politics of environmental protection in Alaska in 2005? 
32 

Answer. As you know well, Alaska has been the focus of some of the most contentious environmental debates. I believe that these environmental debates have been 

overly polarized and have too often resulted in lengthy and costly legal battles without addressing long-term needs or solutions. My point on this question was to draw 

specific attention to the need for the national environmental community to begin to 

build a greater capacity for work in and understanding of local communities in Alaska. As I noted in my personal statement during my confirmation hearing, 1 believe 

strongly that the most successful and durable conservation solutions are those that 

have included broad public input, including local knowledge to create place-based 

solutions for conservation issues. 

Question 4e. And more importantly, if confirmed as the Under Secretary for Policy 

and Budget, what changes to environmental protection for Alaska do you plan to 

advocate for? 

Answer. I understand the importance of this question to you and I recognize that 

the Department has a special relationship with Alaska given the immense presence 

the Department has in your state. I know that the Department implements many 

and diverse Alaska-specific laws and programs, and I look forward to becoming familiar with them if I am confirmed. 

I think it is important to ensure that we have a balanced policy that recognizes 

the importance of Alaska’s vast storehouse of natural resources to the nation’s economic future, while also honoring the treasures protected by Congress and previous 

administrations. Implementing one of these tasks should never preclude implementing the other. 

As I previously noted, it is my belief that the stewardship role entrusted to the 

Department is often best accomplished by including broad public input and creating 

solutions informed by local knowledge. We also must recognize, however, that the 

Department’s decisions must be implemented in accordance with applicable laws. 

Good decision-making, including careful regard for decision-making processes, can 

keep important decisions from ending up in and being made by the courts. In the 

case of development, waiting for the judicial process to run its course can delay development for years and make long-range planning difficult for both the Department 

and industry. 

Question 4f. You also said: ‘‘Indicators of progress might not be the passage of a 

new hill to protect the Tongass (to use the Alaska analogy again), but rather indicators of social and/or political change that are meaningful.’’.... ‘‘For example, on many 

federal policies we have relied on the public comment process to have our voices 

heard. Organizing people to sign letters or send faxes (through an increasingly automated system) worked pretty effectively for a while. Now, however, we are seeing 

that public comments don’t really seem to hold the weight they once did. Thus, the 

question really is whether the strategy is actually going to move you toward the solution you seek.’’ 

In your capacity as Under Secretary for Policy and Budget, if confirmed, you will 

not directly oversee the Tongass National Forest, but you will certainly have the 

ability to shape what does and does not occur in that national forest through your 

relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

What are the specific changes that you believe are needed with regard to the 

management of the Tongass National Forest? 

Answer. As a program officer for both the Hewlett Foundation and now the Packard Foundation, I was able to successfully recommend seed grants to support the 

Tongass Roundtable process (primarily through the Nature Conservancy). I believe 

this process currently represents one of the most promising models for developing 

comprehensive, collaborative and long-term solutions for conservation issues in the 

nation. While it has not been an easy road, and certainly there are still many challenges ahead, it is an example of what can happen when you bring people together 

to collectively define a vision for their future. And this future is dependent on the 

Forest Service implementing a management plan that supports the unique values 

of the Tongass National Forest—which could include the values of timber harvesting, unique species and ecosystems, carbon sequestration, tourism, recreation, 

Alaska Native heritage and subsistence uses. 

Question 4g. In 2005 you opined that the public comment process and letter writing did not hold the weight it once did. What will your policy be regarding letter 

writing campaigns? Will you make policy decisions based on the number of letters 

or faxes you receive, or on sound science and economic considerations? 

Answer. As I have stated earlier, I am a strong believer in robust public participation in policy processes. Letters (or faxes, emails, or telephone calls) will always 

serve as an important element to understanding the views and opinions of the 

American public on any given subject. These inputs, alongside public hearings, public comment periods, and on-going discussions with local communities, are a few of 
33 

the many tools that should be a part of ensuring the ability of the public to engage 

in the decision-making process. In addition, these processes must be built upon the 

best available scientific and economic data available. 

Question 5. If confirmed you will oversee the department’s budget preparation including recommendations to the Administration concerning funding for each of the 

agencies within the department. Over the last four or five decades it has become 

apparent that the Park Service budget is significantly higher on a per-employee or 

per-acre basis than any of the other land management agencies within the department. To some extent this is the result of the budget requests that the department 

has submitted over the years, as well as Congressional appropriations. 

As the department’s budget officer will you commit to developing an analysis to 

be shared with the Congress that examines this issue and recommends ways to better balance the department’s budget requests to that all the agencies get a similar 

amount of funding on a per-acre and per-employee basis? 

Answer. I appreciate the importance of funding all of the land management agencies within the Department of the Interior and their important programs for stewardship of lands and resources. I am not yet familiar with the details of the Department’s budget nor with the approach related to determining the appropriate funding 

level for land management agencies. I will commit to examining this issue and reporting back on the results if I am confirmed. 

RESPONSES OF RHEA S. SUH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 6a. One of the greatest duties of federal employees is to uphold the 

public’s trust. You have been nominated for a position of responsibility for over 

70,000 employees. If confirmed, 1 hope that you will be keenly focused on upholding 

the public’s trust in the Department of Interior. This is a significant challenge, particularly in a Department as vast and important as DOI. One challenge that you 

must face head-on is the tendency for federal employees to ‘‘fail upward’’. In other 

words, the tendency for subpar employees to be moved from the duty station to duty 

station, rather than be appropriately reprimanded or removed from government 

service. These subpar employees seem to move around the country year-after-year, 

through transfers or promotions. This only hurts taxpayers, public land users and 

the thousands of invaluable public servants employed by the Department. 

What concrete steps will you take to address this trend in personnel management? 

Answer. I consider the public’s trust in the Department of the Interior and its employees to be of the utmost importance. It is critical that we have productive and 

effective employees within the Department. Your question raises two separate 

issues, conduct and performance. In terms of issues of conduct, I will review the current conduct and discipline policies to ensure that appropriate policies are in place. 

Managers and supervisors throughout the Department need to be fully aware of the 

rules, principles and guidelines to be followed in disciplining Federal employees and 

have the skills and support they need when action is warranted. 

How well an employee performs their job is addressed through performance management. I will review the performance management system to determine where improvements can he made, make the improvements, and train and hold Interior managers accountable for dealing with poor performance. 

Question 6b. What timeframe will you set for taking these steps? 

Answer. I will make this a priority once I am confirmed. 

Question 7. We see a growing trend of field offices in Wyoming being bogged down 

in limitless FOIA requests from activist groups. These groups are using the FOIA 

process not simply to obtain information. They are manipulating the system in order 

to paralyze the agencies. By overloading local offices with paperwork, they are preventing timely decision making and on-the-ground management. If confirmed, how 

will you direct the bureaus to address the problem of paralyzing FOIA requests? 

Answer. As you are aware, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes a 

number of specific requirements on federal agencies when responding to requests for 

information from the public, including a requirement to conduct a reasonable search 

for documents reasonably described in the request. Compliance with these requirements occasionally creates a burden on agency personnel who must search for responsive documents and otherwise process the request. If confirmed, I commit to instruct the bureaus to follow the mandates of the FOIA when applicable. That said, 

I expect to also comply with the provisions of the OPEN Government Act of 2007, 

which provide that the Chief FOIA Officer shall be responsible for efficient and appropriate compliance with the FOIA and for recommending adjustments to agency 

practices, policies, personnel, and funding necessary to improve implementation of 

this section. When the Chief FOIA Officer identifies improvements and adjustments 
34 

to the FOIA process at the Department, including any adjustments that would minimize the burdens on bureau personnel, I will fully support these efforts to improve 

FOIA processing. 

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. Please describe your views regarding the current mission of the Bureau of Reclamation. As Commissioner, do you envision a new mission for the Bureau of Reclamation on how it develops and manages water? 

Answer. Reclamation was established more than one hundred years ago with a 

mission centered on the construction of irrigation and hydropower projects, many of 

which are still functioning today. In the 107 years since its creation, Reclamation’s 

mission has evolved to include municipal and industrial water supply projects, 

water recycling, ecosystem restoration, site security, and the protection and management of water supplies. As part of this evolution, Reclamation is looking for ways 

to better address environmental impacts, changing demographics, and periodic 

drought in the West. The effects of climate change on water resources pose new 

challenges that Reclamation must also address in fulfilling its mission. I believe 

Reclamation needs to work closely with its contractors, the states, environmental interests, Indian tribes, and Congress as it carries out its core responsibilities. If confirmed as Commissioner, I will support these efforts and help ensure that Reclamation’s programs continue to serve the needs of an evolving West. 

Question 2. Please describe how you intend to prioritize stimulus funding for the 

backlog of water recycling projects at the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Answer. The Recovery Act directed that Reclamation devote a minimum of $126 

million for authorized water recycling projects. The Department announced April 15 

that a total of $135 million of Reclamation’s $1 billion Recovery Act appropriation 

would be dedicated to these projects, which will make significant progress on the 

backlog. These projects are being rated and ranked based on criteria which have 

been publicly announced. I am advised that specific project awards will be announced this month. 

Question 3. Over the next few years, as climate issues are addressed, the Bureau 

of Reclamation will play a key role in analyzing the available data, and its likely 

impact on water resources. Please describe how you intend to address the impact 

of climate change on these resources. 

Answer. I believe strongly that wherever possible, climate change science should 

be incorporated into water resources decisions and planning. I understand Reclamation has a number of research activities underway in partnership with other federal 

agencies aimed at expanding the body of climate change information. I agree that 

the collection and analysis of this information is critically important for modern 

water managers. Congress has directed Reclamation to assess the impact of climate 

change on its operations and plan accordingly. If confirmed, I will support these and 

other initiatives to address climate change. 

Question 4. Will additional water resources need to be developed? If so, what options are currently available to augment these resources? 

Answer. Additional water resources may need to be developed, and that may occur 

through many different means. As noted earlier, water conservation can play a key 

role in providing new supplies. Congress has authorized long-term investments in 

water conservation and efficiency projects. This same law authorizes Reclamation to 

study new ground or surface water storage proposals as a means to address the impacts of climate change. Finally, continued efforts to develop cost-effective desalination technologies may ultimately yield additional useable water resources. 

Question 5. Please describe how you, as commissioner, intend to address the relationship between energy and water within Reclamation. 

Answer. There is a clear nexus between water use and the energy needed to make 

that water available. Pumping and delivering water, and recycling brackish and 

wastewater are energy-intensive. Current desalination technologies are energy- and 

capital-intensive. Conserving water conserves energy. I believe that water conservation is one of the most promising avenues for overall energy conservation, and if 

confirmed, I will work aggressively in this arena. I will also work to assure that 

Reclamation’s hydropower assets continue to provide essential energy supplies in a 

safe and environmentally sound manner in the interest of the American public. I 

think that Reclamation should look for opportunities to integrate renewable energy 

generation into its base operations. Finally, through an active desalination research 

and demonstration program Reclamation could help to reduce the large energy costs 

associated with desalination, leading potentially to increased public acceptance of 

desalination technologies. 
35 

Question 6. Currently there are several agencies and departments within the executive branch that focus on water. Please describe the role the Bureau of Reclamation will play in working with these other agencies to ensure that there is collaboration and cooperation in integrating policy on climate, energy, and water. 

Answer. First, Reclamation needs to continue to be an active participant in an aggressive science program to continue efforts at better understanding the effects of 

climate change on water resources. Second, based on the best available scientific 

data, Reclamation needs to continue working closely with affected interests to assess 

the need to modify its operations and infrastructure to adapt to changes in hydrology and climate. Finally, Reclamation needs to continue its efforts to help water 

users conserve water and operate more efficiently. This latter effort will help the 

West address many of its future water supply challenges, including those that result 

from climate change. I believe that transparency and proactive communication are 

essential to successful collaborative relationships with fellow federal agencies, and 

I will strive to foster these relationships if confirmed. 

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 7a. You may be aware that Yellowtail Dam, managed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation on the Bighorn River, forms Bighorn Lake. The lake is the heart of 

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, managed by the National Park Service, 

that spans the border between Montana and Wyoming. When the dam was built, 

the federal government condemned prosperous farms and ranches in Big Horn 

County Wyoming. The community was promised a tourism economy to replace the 

condemned agricultural land. Wyoming stakeholders observe the management of the 

dam and the recreation area carefully in hopes that the government will one day 

make good on this promise. 

Yellowtail Dam presents unique management challenges for the Bureau. The upstream lake, wildlife habitat and fishery are dependent upon ample water levels behind the darn. The downstream trout fishery and recreation area are dependent 

upon well-timed releases from the dam. These are distinct and contradicting purposes. Management of the dam requires balancing the interests of users upstream 

and downstream in Wyoming and in Montana, respectively. The dam also serves 

power customers and tribal users. 

If confirmed, how will you direct Bureau of Reclamation employees to handle this 

management challenge? 

Answer. I am informed that Reclamation has established a Long Term Issues 

Group together with the National Park Service at Yellowtail Dam which includes 

participation from local interests and relevant state agencies. The group provides a 

forum to address the multi-purpose functions of the Dam, and I believe this to be 

a sound approach. If confirmed, I will work to foster this collaborative approach that 

considers the needs of all stakeholders in the management of Yellowtail Dam and 

the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Question 7b. Additionally, there is a need for improved coordination between the 

Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service. In fact, there is an MOU in 

place between the agencies for management of the dam and National Recreation 

Area that is often overlooked. 

What steps will you take address the need for coordination with the National 

Park Service? (Please be specific.) 

Answer. I am advised that as the manager of the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area and fellow federal participant in the Long Term Issues Group, the National Park Service establishes reservoir elevation targets to meet their resource 

management objectives. Reclamation considers those needs along with the needs of 

the other stakeholders and customers in making operational decisions at Yellowtail. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that this coordination continues. 

Question 7c. How will you direct local-level Bureau of Reclamation employees to 

handle this coordination? (Please be specific.) 

Answer. Reclamation’s Montana Area Office is responsible for the coordinated operations of Yellowtail Dam. If confirmed I will ensure that they fulfill these coordination responsibilities and continue to explore opportunities to maximize benefits 

for all users at Yellowtail Dam. 

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SESSIONS

FISCAL ISSUES

Question 1. Reclamation has received data that indicates the costs of its projects 

more than double when steel pipe has no competition. To my knowledge, Reclamation has never disputed this information. Before Reclamation changed the Technical 
36 

Memorandum, it routinely cited the importance of competition and cost concerns. 

What role does competition and an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of a project and 

the materials used in a project play in Reclamation’s decision-making? 

Answer. I am informed that Reclamation considers several factors in selecting materials, such as cost, performance, long-term reliability, availability, ease of replacement or repair, and other factors. Competitive solicitation processes are typically 

used to select materials for a particular specification, with the selection based on 

products that best meet the technical requirements of that specification. 

Question 2. Has Reclamation evaluated the effect of the Technical Memorandum 

on the ability of Reclamation to provide water in a cost-effective manner? 

Answer. I am advised that the Technical Memorandum (TM) was prepared in response to direction in House Appropriations Committee Report 108-212, to ‘‘establish good engineering practices which address the long-term value and cost effectiveness of facilities constructed over time.’’ Congressional direction at the time stated 

that, ‘‘[A]dditional work is needed to develop a more definitive corrosion standard 

on which to decide the best product for a particular application.’’ I am further advised that Reclamation considers the use of bonded dielectric coatings and cathodic 

protection for all metallic pipe in highly corrosive soils a worthy investment to enhance each pipe option’s ability to provide reliable performance for the duration of 

its service life. 

Question 3. Has Reclamation performed an analysis of whether the increased costs 

caused by the requirement to use bonded coatings versus polyethylene encasement 

on ductile iron pipe provides benefits that outweigh the costs? 

Answer. I am not aware of any specific analysis that has been performed of the 

benefits versus the costs of bonded coatings versus polyethylene encasement on ductile iron pipe. However, I am informed that material costs factor into Reclamation 

materials selections as one of many considerations. Further, I am advised that Reclamation maintains an active dialogue with organizations interested in pipe materials, such as the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) and National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) to share the latest information on this and 

other issues related to corrosion mitigation on buried metallic pipe. 

Question 4. Did Reclamation provide the National Academies’ Committee with any 

guidance about whether the National Academies’ Committee should evaluate economics in its review of the Technical Memorandum? 

Answer. I did not participate in the National Academies’ review process, but I am 

advised that the National Academies review focused on two questions: 1. whether 

polyethylene encasement with cathodic protection works on ductile iron pipe installed in highly corrosive soils; and 2. whether polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection can reliably provide a minimum service life of 50 years. I further 

understand that the NAS review was structured to allow DIPRA and others to provide additional information they felt was appropriate for NAS to consider, which 

could include information about economic considerations. 

Question 5. It is my understanding that the entities receiving Reclamation funding own the pipeline after the repayment period. Why does Reclamation not allow 

the owner of a project to determine the best material for its projects? 

Answer. As a federal agency Reclamation constructs projects to carry out Congressional intent behind the authorization and appropriation of funds. Reclamation retains an active interest in the reliability of the projects at least through the project 

repayment period (typically 50 years) or beyond, depending on a project-specific authorizing legislation. I am advised that Reclamation’s 50 year service life requirement for pipelines reflects this interest. I also understand that Reclamation works 

with the entities that receive funding for projects to be constructed under Reclamation’s authority on design and construction issues. 

Question 6. It is my understanding that it is reasonable to assume that water 

leaks will occur on a pipeline and that entities include maintenance funds in their 

budget. Why should an owner of a Reclamation-funded pipeline not be able to evaluate all of the costs of potential pipe materials (initial costs, maintenance costs, etc.) 

to determine the best material for its end-users taking into account their particular 

situation? 

Answer. I am informed that Reclamation often considers this cost information in 

the selection of materials and works with the entities that receive funding for 

projects on design and construction issues. Reclamation makes decisions based on 

the best available scientific information and engineering experience. As noted above, 

Reclamation retains an active interest in the reliability of the projects at least 

through the project repayment period (typically 50 years) or beyond, depending on 

project-specific authorizing legislation. 

Question 7. Many utilities and entities across the country use their buried pipe 

as assets for financing. Reclamation has taken the position that the corrosion meth-
37 

od of choice in the water works industry—polyethylene encasement—is not 

acceptabe in all soil environments. Has Reclamation considered the effect that this 

decision may have on the ability of entities to receive financing or the detrimental 

effect this decision may have on the valuation of underground assets throughout the 

United States? 

Answer. I do not have information on the ability of entities to secure funding 

based on the financial community’s reaction to Reclamation’s decisions or documents, but I am advised that Reclamation has not been made aware of any financing issues caused by its policy on materials for pipelines. 

PROCESS

Question 8. Reclamation invested more than $100 million in polyethylene-encased 

ductile iron pipe before it changed the Technical Memorandum. When reviewing the 

previous Technical Memorandum, Reclamation contacted numerous utilities 

throughout the country but did not contact the Reclamation-funded projects that 

used polyethylene encasement to get their opinion of polyethylene encasement, 

which is positive. Why did Reclamation not contact the most relevant entities for 

its inquiry? 

Answer. I do not have experience with the process leading up to Reclamation’s 

2004 Technical Memorandum (TM) and at this time I do not have information on 

which entities were most relevant for Reclamation’s corrosion considerations. I 

would be willing to look into this matter if confirmed. 

USE OF POLYETHYLENE ENCASEMENT

Question 9. Reclamation has indicated that the Technical Memorandum is not a 

standard but a set of guidelines. May a Reclamation-funded project use polyethylene-encased, cathodically-protected ductile iron pipe in all soil environments? 

Answer. I am advised that in appropriate circumstances, it is possible for a project 

to obtain an exception from the guidelines contained in the TM. 

Question 10. If so, are there any aurthorizations required? 

Answer. I am advised that the Reclamation director with programmatic responsibility for the project must approve the proposed exception. 

NATIONAL ACADEMIES’ REVIEW

Question 11. Reclamation has taken the position that its ‘‘target performance level 

is zero external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the 

pipeline to be taken out of service during the minimum service life (i.e. 50 years).’’ 

See Reclamation Letter to the National Academies’ Committee, August 21, 2008, at 

2. 

Reclamation funds water projects in rural areas. It is a given that water pipes 

will leak at some point, and operations budgets account for this. Do you believe that 

a standard of zero leaks cuased by external corrosion in 50 years is a reasonable 

standard for water pipes? 

Answer. I believe that the target performance level is reasonable in light of the 

types of pipelines Reclamation typically constructs,b ut one which may not always 

be achieved due to a variety of factors including unseen imperfections and the number of variables involved with pipe installation in the field. 

Question 12. Has Reclamation used the zero corrosion induced leakes/ruptures/ 

failures standard, which would prevent a pipleline from being taken out of service 

in 50 years, to evaluate the pipe materials it will allow on its projects? 

Answer. I am advised that this is a target performance level upon which Reclamation bases its recommended corrosion mitigation methods for all buried metallic 

pipelines. 

Question 13. What would it cost for a pipeline to ensure that it could have no external corrosion leaks in 50 years? 

Answer. It is not possible to answer this question without more specificity regarding the length of the pipe, site conditions, operations criteria, and other factors. 

However, according to the quotation that you cite, Reclamation is not aiming for 

zero leaks in 50 years. The stated target performance level is no leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the system to be taken out of service in this 50 year period. I am advised that the goal is to postpone corrosion induced major structural 

failures of the pipeline for at least 50 years. 

Question 14. During the National Academies’ review, ‘‘[t]he Committee then asked 

if Reclamation would accept a similar failure rate for ductile iron pipe installed in 

severely corrosive soils with polyethylene encasement and cathodic proection as we 

would get from steel pipe installed in severely corrosive soils with a bonded dielectric coating and cathodic protection.’’ Id. Reclamation agreed this was a reasonable 
38 

benchmark but did not have any data on the performance of steel pipe with bonded 

coatings in highly corrosive soils. Id. at 3. 

For the past five years, Reclamation has required the ductile iron pipe industryo 

provide significant data regarding the effectiveness of polyethylene-encased, cathodically-protected ductile iron pipe in ‘‘highly corrosive’’ (≤2000 ohm-cm) soils. Why 

does Reclamation not have similar information regarding the effectiveness of steel 

pipe with bonded dielectric coatings in ‘‘highly corrosive’’ soils? 

Answer. I am advised that Reclamation’s requests for data from DIPRA have been 

designed to collect information which could address the concerns voiced by many 

throughout these industries regarding the effectiveness of polyethylene encased ductile iron pipe in general, and specifically, polyethylene encased ductile iron pipe installed with cathodic protection systems in highly corrosive soils. I understand that 

engineers and pipe experts have not raised similar concerns about the performance 

of cathodically protected steel pipe with bonded dielectric coating installed in highly 

corrosive soils. 

Question 15. Why does Reclamation not require any data regarding the effectiveness of steelipe in ‘‘highly corrosive’’ soils? 

Answer. As stated in my response to question 14, I am advised that Reclamation’s 

requests for data from DIPRA have been designed to collect information that could 

address concerns raised by people in these industries. I am informed that Reclamation has been open to dialogue with all pipe manufacturers and the National Academies since the 2004 TM was issued. 

Question 16. Instead of the requested data, Reclamation provided the National 

Academies’ Committee with the performance data of DOT-regulated steel pipelines 

carrying natural gas in unknown soil environments because ‘‘this database is the 

best source of quantitative data on this issue to date.’’ Id. 

The Technical Memorandum regulates water systems. Why is data regarding regulated oil or gas pipelines relevant? 

Answer. I am informed that Reclamation provided the most appropriate data 

available which could be used to meet the information needs of the Academies within the timeframe of the NAS review. 

Question 17. Does Reclamation believe that its water pipelines have the same 

oversight and maintenance requirements as regulated oil and gas pipelines? 

Answer. I am not at this time aware of how Reclamation’s policy on water pipelines compares to the oversight and maintenance requirements of oil and gas pipelines. 

Question 18. Does Reclamation believe that its water pipelines should have the 

same oversight and maintenance requirements as regulated oil and gas pipelines? 

Answer. As stated earlier, I am informed that Reclamation provided the DOT data 

because ii was the most appropriate data available which could be used to meet the 

information needs of the Academies within the timeframe of the NAS review. It is 

my understanding that by providing this data, Reclamation was not suggesting that 

Reclamation water pipelines and regulated oil and gas pipelines should have the 

same oversight and maintenance requirements. I am further advised that Reclamation’s focus on the issue of corrosion mitigation for its buried metallic pipe has been 

and continues to he on the ability of its pipelines to provide a minimum 50 year 

service life. Facility maintenance reviews of Reclamation projects are conducted at 

standard intervals, but oversight and maintenance requirements on particular 

project features vary depending on the project. 

Question 19. Reclamation has repeatedly emphasized that the Technical Memorandum only governs ‘‘highly corrosive soils.’’ Why is the DOT data regarding the 

performance of steel pipe in unknown soils relevant? 

Answer. I am advised that the TM addresses all soil types, and that the NAS review was focused on the performance of polyethylene encased ductile iron pipe installed in highly corrosive soils because that has been the area of disagreement between Reclamation and DIPRA. As noted above, I have been informed that the DOT 

data set provided the best source of quantitative performance data of cathodically 

protected steel pipe installed with bonded dielectric coating available to Reclamation 

within the timeframe of the NAS review. 

Question 20. Will Reclamation accept data regarding the effectiveness of ductile 

iron pipe with polyethylene encasement in unknown soils as evidence that polyethylene encasement can meet Reclamation’s corrosion standards? 

Answer. I am advised that Reclamation is open to any and all relevant performance data. 

Question 21. In the DOT data that Reclamation provided to the National Academies’ Committee, Reclamation focused exclusively on ‘‘significant incidents’’, which 

include: 
39 

• Fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization; 

• $50,000 or more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars; 

• Highly volatile liquid releases of 5 barrels or more or other liquid releases of 

50 barrels or more; or 

• Liquid releases resulting in an unintentional fire or explosion. 

The ‘‘significant incidents’’ listed above demonstrate the potential dangers that 

pressurized oil and gas pipelines present. Does Reclamation believe that the risks 

of a leak on a Reclamation water pipeline are comparable to the risks of a pressurized oil or gas pipeline leak? 

Answer. Depending on the location and nature of failures, water line ruptures can 

present significant hazards to the public. 

Question 22. It appears that the DOT database included all incidents on steel 

pipelines, not just the ‘‘significant incidents’’. Why did Reclamation only present the 

‘‘significant incidents’’ to the National Academies’ Committee? 

Answer. I am advised that the selection of this subset of DOT data was based on 

a desire to provide data on the types of corrosion induced problems within the DOT 

data which was as similar as possible to the types of serious failures described as: 

‘‘...external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline to be taken out of service...’’ noted in Reclamation’s ‘‘target performance level.’’ 

Question 23. Reclamation presented a standard that it wanted ‘‘zero external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which would require the pipeline to be taken 

out of service’’ during the first 50 years. Since Reclamation wanted perfection, how 

is a measurement of ‘‘significant incidents’’ relevant? 

Answer. I am advised that during the NAS review, Reclamation did not characterize this performance level as a standard but rather as a ‘‘target performance 

level.’’ As noted above, I am also advised that the selection of this subset of DOT 

data was based on a desire to provide data on the types of corrosion induced problems within the DOT data which was as similar as possible to the types of serious 

failures described as: ‘‘...external corrosion induced leaks/ruptures/failures which 

would require the pipeline to be taken out of service...’’ noted in Reclamation’s ‘‘target performance level.’’ 

Question 24. Has Reclamation ever used the 0.000044 failures/mile/year standard 

to evaluate proposed project or pipe material? 

Answer. I am advised that Reclamation has not used this numerical analysis of 

the DOT data to evaluate a proposed project or pipe material. 

Question 25. Does Reclamation intend to use this or another calculation to evaluate pipe materials in the future? 

Answer. I understand that there are further technical considerations involved in 

evaluating pipe materials, and I would be willing to look into this matter if confirmed. 

Question 26. Do you believe that it is reasonable or cost-effective to require a 450- 

mile, Reclamation-funded water pipeline to have one external corrosion leak/rupture/failure in its first 50 years of service? 

Answer. I do not have experience with Reclamation’s requirements in this area 

but would be willing to look into this matter if confirmed. 

(41) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

DUCKS UNLIMITED, 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 1, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, SH-703 Hart Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, SH-709 Hart Senate 

Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI: On behalf of 

Ducks Unlimited’s (DU) one million members and supporters, we would like to 

share our support for Rhea Suh as you consider her nomination to be Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget in the Department of the Interior. For 

over 70 years, DU has worked to conserve waterfowl and the habitat they depend 

on, and in doing so, we have advocated for better wildlife conservation that benefits 

waterfowl, landowners, and the general public. Based on our work with her, we believe that Ms. Suh has the background, experience, and leadership abilities necessary to perform in an exceptional manner in the position of Assistant Secretary. 

Rhea Suh has worked throughout the Pacific Flyway with Ducks Unlimited to 

protect key coastal and wetland habitats. She has been a leader in waterfowl and 

wetland conservation in the Boreal forest of Canada. Working for the Hewlett Foundation, in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts and Ducks Unlimited, Suh 

has supported key long-term protection for a Boreal Landscape that is critical to 

scaup, scoter, wigeon, green-winged teal, black duck, and mallard ducks. Suh has 

worked closely with the International Boreal Conservation Campaign and our organization to seek true long-term conservation solutions with a myriad of stakeholders. 

Thank you for your consideration of Rhea Suh to serve the Department of Interior 

as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget. Please let us know if 

we can assist in any way. 

Sincerely, 

SCOTT A. SUTHERLAND, 

Director. 

WATEREUSE ASSOCIATION, 

April 23, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN: On behalf of the WateReuse Association, I am writing in strong support of President Obama’s nomination of Mr. Michael L. Connor 

to become the next Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau). Over 

the past five years, we have worked with Mr. Connor in his capacity as counsel to 

the committee. During this time, he has displayed an uncommon capacity to address 

policy issues in an open manner that contributed to the development of public policy 

that effectively addresses the water supply needs of our membership. Mr. Connor 

will bring to the Bureau a wealth of experience and expertise to allow the Bureau 

to meet the challenges of climate change, growing populations, and water scarcity 

throughout the West. We hope that your committee will act swiftly on his confirmation hearing in the coming weeks. 
42 

Mr. Connor’s credentials and experience illustrate an individual uniquely qualified to assume the duties of Commissioner. With a degree in chemical engineering 

and working within industry, he has the knowledge essential to manage complicated 

programs. As a former official of the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor, he is well versed in the statutory obligations of the Department and the Bureau. And finally, his most recent duties as Counsel to the committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources provide a special understanding of the policymaking process. 

Each of these accomplishments alone makes him an outstanding selection. Together, 

they represent an opportunity for a talented individual to take the helm of the Bureau and swiftly address the many water-related needs of the West. 

Again, we are hopeful that the committee will move without delay and convene 

Mr. Connor’s confirmation hearing and move the nomination to the Senate floor for 

a positive vote. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD ATWATER, 

President. 

SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO, 

WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, 

Pueblo, CO, April 19, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate 

Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Re: Nomination and Confirmation of Michael L. Connor for Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

DEAR SENATORS BINGAMAN AND MURKOWSKI: It is my privilege to write today in 

support of the nomination of Michael L. Connor for the post of Commissioner of the 

Bureau of Reclamation and I ask the Committee to support his confirmation. 

As you know, Mr. Connor has more than 15 years of experience in the public sector, including having served as Counsel to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where he managed legislation for the Bureau of Reclamation 

and other issues that are within the Energy Committee’s jurisdiction. In addition, 

from 1993 to 2001, Mr. Connor served in the Department of the Interior, including 

as deputy director and then director of the Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Office 

from 1998 to 2001. In his capacity, Mr. Connor represented the Secretary of the Interior in negotiations with Indian tribes, state representatives, and private water 

users to secure water rights settlements consistent with the federal trust responsibility to tribes. 

Mr. Connor’s experience makes him highly qualified to serve as Commissioner. In 

addition, Mike has a proven track record of building consensus with a wide range 

of stakeholders, including the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. 

We at the District look forward to working with him to ensure that we are wisely 

managing our precious water resources at the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project for the 

benefit of the people of southeastern Colorado. 

Again, please support confirmation of Mr. Connor for the post of Commissioner 

of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Sincerely, 

BILL LONG, 

President. 

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, 

Arlington, VA, March 23, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate 

Office Building, SD-304, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing on behalf of the membership of the National 

Water Resources Association in unanimous support of President Obama’s selection 

of Michael L. Connor to be the next Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. It is our opinion that the President could not have chosen a more qualified individual. 
43 

For the past eight years, NWRA members have worked on a myriad of water and 

energy issues with Mr. Connor in his role as both majority and minority counsel 

to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Mr. Connor has a solid 

understanding of the issues facing Western water and energy customers and has always been a facilitator of compromise and fairness. 

We believe Michael Conner will be a great asset to Secretary Salazar, the President and the members of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

and the House Natural Resources Committee as they address the challenges ahead. 

In the strongest possible terms, the National Water Resources Association supports the nomination of Michael L. Connor as the Comissioner of Reclamation and 

urges the Committee to expeditiously report his nomination to the full Senate. 

If we can assist the Committee in any manner, please do not hesitate to contact 

me personally. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THOMAS F. DONNELLY, 

Executive Vice President. 

Æ