U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–264 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–144 

ORR, ELKIND, SUH, AND BEAUDREAU 

NOMINATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING NOMINATIONS: DR. FRANKLIN M. ORR, TO 

BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; MR. 

JONATHAN ELKIND, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

(INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS), DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; MS. RHEA S. 

SUH, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AND 

PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND MR. TOMMY P. 

BEAUDREAU, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

(POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET) 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Beaudreau, Tommy P., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior 

(Policy, Management and Budget) ...................................................................... 15 

Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Alaska .................................................... 7 

Elkind, Jonathan, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Energy (International 

Affairs), Dept. of Energy ...................................................................................... 10 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator From California ........................................ 4 

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

Orr, Franklin M. Jr., Nominee to be Under Secretary For Science, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................... 8 

Suh, Rhea, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 12 

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

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 37 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 69 

(1) 

ORR, ELKIND, SUH, AND BEAUDREAU 

NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2013 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:01 a.m. in room SD– 

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden, chairman, 

presiding. 

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

FROM OREGON 

The CHAIRMAN. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

will come to order. 

Today we meet to consider 4 nominations. 

Dr. Franklin M. Orr, to be the Under Secretary for Science. 

Mr. Jonathan Elkind, to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for 

International Affairs. 

Ms. Rhea Suh, to be the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks. 

Mr. Tommy Beaudreau, to be the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management and Budget. 

My view is is these are 4 very well qualified nominees. 

Briefly, Franklin Orr has been nominated to be the Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy. This is a position 

that was originally established to oversee the Department’s research and development programs. Secretary Moniz has expanded 

the Office’s role to encompass both science and energy programs. 

I’m of the view that Dr. Orr is an individual with credentials as 

broad as the expanded scope of the office he has been nominated 

to. He is also a Stanford Fellow which I’m sort of predisposed starting with my history with my mom as a librarian there. I came 

there after starting at Cal after, particularly, start with a basketball career. 

So we’re glad you’re here, Dr. Orr. 

Jonathan Elkind, nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs, had been the principle Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs since June 

2009 and has served as the Acting Secretary since earlier this year. 

Before joining the Department of Energy in 2009, he was the Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution where he focused on energy 

security and foreign policy. He has also worked in the private sector. 

We’re very glad to have you as well. 

2 

Ms. Rhea Suh, been nominated to be Assistant Secretary for 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks. She has been the Assistant Secretary of 

the Interior of Policy and Management and Budget for the past 4 

years. She previously worked for the Hewlett and Packard Foundation, served as a Senior Legislative Assistant to Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell. 

We look forward to talking with you, Ms. Suh. You have one big 

challenge on your hands, as you know. Senator Murkowski and I 

have, in a bipartisan way, made it a priority to look at how we’re 

going to fund the parks for the future. So we’re looking forward to 

exploring that with you. 

Mr. Beaudreau, you’ve been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management and Budget. The job 

is being vacated by Ms. Suh if she’s confirmed in the position she’s 

being considered for. You’ve been the Director of the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management since 2001. Previously you were a partner in the law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson. 

Like our other nominees this morning we think you’re very well 

qualified, enjoyed visiting with you. As you know, we’re going to 

really be interested in those kind of 3 parts of the job that you’re 

going to be focused on, policy, management and budget. We’re 

going to ask some questions about how we can look to that position 

to help us tackle some of the issues that I, Senator Murkowski and 

Senator Landrieu feel very strongly about and that’s revenue sharing. 

We think all of you are highly qualified for the positions you’ve 

been nominated for. We look forward to learning more about your 

thoughts on key issues this morning. 

I’m going to recognize Senator Murkowski to make her statement 

at this point, then we have some other formalities. 

We’re very happy to be joined by our colleague, the Chair of the 

Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, who has a long history 

of involvement in these issues. 

So we’re going to recognize now, Senator Murkowski, for her 

statement. Then we have some formalities to go through, an oath 

and on a hectic morning in the Senate. We will manage to get it 

all in. 

So, Senator Murkowski, please proceed. 

As all of you nominees know, Senator Murkowski and I feel very 

strongly about working on these issues in a bipartisan way. We’re 

going to do that again. 

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

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 

those who are with us this morning. Welcome to Senator Feinstein. 

It is important work this morning. Since our committee last convened we’ve seen some changes in the Senate rules with respect to 

nominations. Without seeking to revisit any of that this morning, 

I hope that all Senators would agree that our committee’s process 

on nominations, which has always been very significant, perhaps 

has renewed significance. 

I think it’s worthy of note that through history more than 90 percent of nominees are confirmed and roll call votes, when they’re 

3 

taken are ordinarily not close. Nominees often are confirmed with 

large majority. Some have contended that this process has been 

just a rubber stamp for the President. 

But on the other hand, I think others would agree with me that 

the high pass rate is an indicator that the process is generally 

working properly. 

Either way, the work of the committee generally and of this committee, specifically, is crucial in the confirmation process. Among 

other things through the committee process the President and certainly nominees themselves, should expect a thorough vetting process. Thus it’s good to be in that vetting process this morning, Mr. 

Chairman. 

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

committee. Thank you all for your willingness to serve. 

I’d like to first recognize a fellow Alaskan, Mr. Tommy 

Beaudreau. 

Some may not recognize that Mr. Beaudreau grew up in Alaska. 

He graduated from Service High School in Anchorage. His family 

moved to the State when his Dad got a job working on the North 

Slope which is a story that’s very familiar to a lot of us in Alaska. 

I’m always pleased to see Alaskans holding positions with decisionmaking authority over activities in the State because no one understands the importance more of the blend of resource development 

and the protection of our lands and our waters like someone who’s 

lived there and experienced it firsthand. 

Mr. Beaudreau, it was great to visit with you yesterday. As I 

mentioned in our conversation, I’m counting on you. I’m counting 

on you for a lot of different things, but to really complete the very 

important work, even as you conclude your service in the current 

position. I’m looking forward to continuing to work with you in 

your new role here. 

I’ve been assured by you and by others that your new position 

represents a promotion for you and is evidence of the value that 

the Secretary and the Administration assigned to your counsel. 

With your experience on Arctic issues and other issues that are 

very important to the State, I’m optimistic that wise counsel will 

be heard at the top echelons at the Department of the Interior. 

So I look forward to you in this new position. 

Ms. Suh, it was good to visit with you prior to the recess. As I 

mentioned at that time, the Department’s role as Alaska’s landlord 

is always front and center. I think Mr. Beaudreau saw that firsthand. 

I had kind of hoped that in your previous position you had become more familiar with the policy issues as they specifically related to Alaska which consume, will consume, so much of your 

time. I think you have a learning curve in front of you. I’m looking 

forward to, not only learning more about you today and through 

your answers to the questions on the record, but about your knowledge, your experience and your policy views on issues that are important to Alaska and to the nation. 

Dr. Orr, Mr. Elkind, welcome. I’ve been impressed with the team 

that Secretary Moniz is assembling at the Department of Energy. 

I think he’s doing a good job over there. 

4 

As I told Dr. Croley and Mr. Smith last month, I’m counting on 

DOE, specifically through its leaders to be a vigorous advocate for 

affordable and reliable energy, especially in the interagency process. I also want the Department to carry out its clear legal responsibilities according to settle law. So I’m going to be listening carefully this morning. I know it’s going to be, kind of, up and down. 

I apologize to you all, but you know what the process is like around 

here. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, to you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski. 

We’re going to call an audible here because we’ve got a vote coming on and Senator Feinstein is here on about, probably, 3 and a 

half hours sleep. 

Dr. Orr, you are very lucky to have her in her corner—in your 

corner. I think we have just enough time for Senator Feinstein’s 

statement and we can all still make the vote. 

Welcome, Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m 

very impressed that both of you are bright eyed and bushy tailed 

this morning. 

I’m really very honored to introduce to both you, Mr. Chairman 

and to your distinguished Ranking Member, Stanford University 

professor, Franklin M. Orr, who President Obama has nominated 

to serve as Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy. 

Dr. Orr currently directs the Precourt Institute for Energy at 

Stanford. He’s led this Institute since it was created in 2009. This 

is $100 million Institute. It is drawn upon deep expertise from 

across the Stanford campus and around the world to develop sustainable energy solutions and search for ways to reduce atmospheric levels of carbon. 

The research funded under Dr. Orr’s leadership is ground breaking. Just this year the Institute has funded revolutionary new designs for fuel cells, studies focused on improving the performance 

of hybrid cars, natural ventilation systems in buildings and programs that financially motivate utility customers to use electricity 

more efficiently and experiments boosting the output of wind 

farms, testing a new kind of solar cell and using carbon dioxide as 

a way of storing electricity. Dr. Orr’s work overseeing the Precourt 

Institute grant program prepares him to oversee DOE’s programs 

including ARPA–E in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. They award billions of dollars to promising energy 

technology research each year. 

Now what I’ve gotten from the Precourt program is how practical 

it is to real solutions. I think that’s important. 

Prior to leading this Institute, Dr. Orr served as the Founding 

Director of the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford. He 

has been a professor in Stanford’s Department of Energy Resources, Engineering since 1985, serving as Dean of the School of 

Earth Sciences from 1994 to 2002 and Chairman of his Department 

before that. 

5 

If confirmed, he will be taking on a very important task. Secretary Moniz has expanded the Under Secretary for Science role so 

that it now oversees both basic science research and applied energy 

programs such as nuclear energy, fossil energy and the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

The Under Secretary now will oversee offices that had a com- bined budget of $7.7 billion in Fiscal Year 2013. These offices are 

the epicenter of our nation’s effort to conduct basic physical science 

research in order to develop the cleaner technologies we need. They 

are charged with developing and demonstrating the emissions free 

power plants, affordable electric cars, fuel cells and low carbon 

transportation fuel that will allow our nation to slow global warming and grow our economy at the same time. 

Secretary Moniz has handpicked Dr. Orr to lead a much more integrated approach where basic science, applied research, technology 

demonstration and deployment programs work together to push 

clean energy toward a coordinated strategy. In other words, Dr. 

Orr is being given the job of leading our nation’s charge to tackle 

climate change. I really recommend him to you for that role. He 

has the brains, the experience and the manner to get the job done. 

So thank you very much for giving me a few moments to say this 

and highly recommend him to your committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Feinstein, thank you for a very important statement, both in terms of the work that’s going on at Stanford, Dr. Orr’s qualifications. 

My sense is we’ve got about 90 seconds left to vote. So if our witnesses are agreed we’ll let 3 Senators get out the door. I think it’s 

very appropriate we break after Senator Feinstein’s eloquent statement. 

We will be back here fairly shortly and thank you again. We’ll 

be breaking for the vote. 

[RECESS] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank all the nominees and Senators for their 

patience. It’s going to be something of a juggling act. 

At this point let us have the oath. The rules of the committee 

which apply to all nominees require that they be sworn in connection with their testimony. So if you would, please rise and raise 

your right hand. 

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

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall be the 

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

[A chorus of, I do] 

The CHAIRMAN. Please be seated. 

Before you begin your statement I’ll ask 3 questions addressed 

to each nominee before this committee. 

Will you be available to appear before this committee and other 

Congressional Committees to represent Departmental positions and 

respond to issues of concern to the Congress? 

[A chorus of, I will.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Each of you have said, I will. 

Are you aware of any personal holdings, investments or interests 

that could constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance 

of such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the office 

to which you’ve been nominated by the President? 

6 

[A chorus of no.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Each of you have said no. 

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

Alright. What we’re going to do now we’d like each of you to introduce your family members. This has been a very good tradition. 

After we do that, we’re going to welcome our colleague and friend, 

Senator Begich, to make an introductory statement. Then we’ll recognize the nominees to make their opening statements. 

So let us ask each of the nominees to introduce their family 

members. 

Dr. Orr. 

Mr. ORR. It’s a great pleasure to introduce my wife, Susan. We’re 

in our 44th year and counting. One of the products of that partnership, my son, David, is also here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will you all at least wave? If you’re willing to 

stand up, we like that so everyone else can see you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome you and glad that you’re here. 

Let’s go with you, Mr. Elkind? Where is your family? There’s 

some little characters floating around back there. 

Mr. ELKIND. Thank you, Chairman. 

I’m delighted to introduce my wife, Susan Mintz. We’re short 

timers in comparison to Dr. Orr, 25 years and our eldest son, Benjamin and our youngest, Noah and maybe on the other end of the 

webcast are our son, who is overseas at present. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Mr. ELKIND. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you all stand just real quickly so we can 

all see you? Great. Good. Glad the Elkind caucus is here. That’s 

great. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Suh, welcome. 

Ms. SUH. Mr. Chairman, my 3 year old daughter, Yeumi, woke 

up today with a little bit of a cold. So unfortunately my husband 

and my daughter are not able to join us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your 3 year old is excused, potential friend for 

Scarlett Willow Wyden, age one. So we like that. 

Mr. Beaudreau, your family? 

Mr. BEAUDREAU. Yes, I’m joined today by my wife, Carrie, my 

daughter, Nellie and my son, Auggie. They’ve missed some school 

this week because of the weather so I’d like to thank Grace Episcopal Day School for excusing them again this morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. How old are you guys? How old are you kids? 

Nellie Beaudreau, 10. 

Auggie Beaudreau, 8. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Alright. Thank you. I see the family 

resemblance too. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We’re glad you’re here. Welcome. 

Let’s now have Senator Begich’s statement. He’s been juggling a 

lot today. We knew you were going to parachute in at some point. 

We are very glad to have you and know of your long standing expertise and interest in energy issues. 

So, please proceed with your comments. 

7 

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

FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member 

Murkowski. I know you have a whole slate of nominees so I will 

keep my comments brief. 

It is my pleasure today to introduce an Alaskan known to many 

members of the committee, Tommy Beaudreau. As you know 

Tommy served as the first Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management beginning in October 2011. Since January of this year 

he has also served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. 

Beyond this impressive experience already, he has incredible degrees from Yale University as an undergraduate and Georgetown 

Law School. 

Tommy has experience and traits we Alaskans value highly. 

First, he and his family have first hand and lived firsthand with 

the economic ups and downs found in natural resource extraction 

industries. His family came to Alaska when his father got a job in 

the oil business and he lived with that job going away. 

As an Alaskan he can also understand how an economy and people depend on resource extraction at the same time treasure natural beauty and abundant wildlife. He knows how communities of 

subsistence dwellers rely on oil production for schools and 

healthcare facilities. While it makes me happy to have someone in 

power who knows how to pronounce Alaskan names, it’s more important that he knows—is known as an honest broker. 

I haven’t always agreed with every decision Tommy or the Department has made during his tenure. But he listens. He listened 

to me. He listened to the industry and he listened to the conservation community. 

In the end, by and large, we have a workable policy. 

As we move toward another season of offshore exploration in the 

Arctic Ocean, I’m sad to see him leave his current position. However, I know that he won’t be far from it. His experience getting 

up to speed on offshore oil and gas and the host of scientific environmental work it depends on is too valuable to let go, particularly 

5 years into an 8 year Presidential Administration. 

Tommy, congratulations and consider this truly fair warning, I’ll 

continue to call you on many occasions. I know my colleagues, my 

colleague from Alaska will do the same on multiple times. We’re 

anxious to see you move forward. 

Again, congratulations. I just wanted to introduce another Alaskan in the bureaucracy of Washington. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Begich, thank you very much. As you 

know, you are always welcome in this committee. 

Senator Murkowski, both of you, both of Alaska Senators, 100 

percent of the Alaskan Senate delegation has, I think, eloquently 

made the case. There’s some unique challenges that are faced in 

your part of the world that are different than the lower 48. Both 

of you are very involved, obviously, in national energy policy issues. 

But you make some very important arguments with respect to 

the well being of your State that really does affect the whole country. So we thank you. 

8 

Mr. Beaudreau, you are lucky to have Senator Begich in your 

corner. 

So we’ll excuse you. I know you have a busy day, Senator Begich. 

Again, you’re always welcome here at the committee. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright. We’re going to make your prepared remarks a part of the hearing record in their entirety. I want to 

make a plea that each of you set aside your prepared remarks. 

They’re going to be part of the hearing record and just take 5 minutes or so and speak to us. 

I know that there is a compulsion to just put your head down 

and read every single word. If I can somehow persuade you to take 

the time, just kind of summarize your concerns. That’d be helpful. 

It’s going to be a hectic morning. We would like to get to questions. 

Dr. Orr, welcome and you’re nominated for a particularly important position. So, go ahead. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANKLIN M. ORR, JR., NOMINEE TO BE 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. ORR. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski and 

members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to appear 

before you today. It’s certainly an honor. 

I’m grateful to the President for nominating me. I spent pretty 

much my whole career working on energy matters in one way or 

another. This is a chance for me to apply all of that to a position 

that I think is of critical importance to the future of energy in the 

Nation. 

I’m a chemical engineer by training. My early career was spent 

on working on enhanced oil recovery to try to recover oil that would 

be left behind by typical, conventional methods. A lot of that involved using high pressure CO2. So that led me into work on carbon capture and storage. That’s been a big focus for my research 

group in the last 15 years. 

Along the way I also got involved in leading research enterprises. 

I was Dean at one of the schools—the School of Earth Sciences at 

Stanford and then stepped down from that to lead a big energy research project that worked on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy use by much more efficient conversions of some 

primary energy resource into energy services. 

In recent years, as Senator Feinstein was kind enough to say, we 

formed an energy institute at Stanford. The idea was really to try 

to bring together people across the whole campus who were thinking about energy. They are distributed in 22 different departments 

across the University and are trying to build a fully enriched conversation that goes from the fundamental science through lots of 

technology to the economics and policy and finance and regulatory 

issues and all the behavioral issues that all of us who make decisions in our daily lives about energy work on. 

So that experience has taught me the value of a portfolio, of looking at research that really has the potential to change the game, 

to make possible energy futures that are more efficient and emit 

fewer greenhouse gases. Those are things that I’m convinced that 

we can do. 

9 

I’ll just close by saying that, I think there is a huge opportunity 

to work on the question of how we integrate science and technology 

research at DOE. That’s a challenge I look forward to taking on if 

I’m confirmed. 

So thank you for considering my nomination. I’m happy to answer questions when we get to that stage. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orr follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN M. ORR, JR., NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY

FOR SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as you consider my nomination for the position of Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy 

(DOE). It is an honor to be here. I also very much appreciate the time Members 

of this Committee have taken to meet with me, and, if confirmed, I look forward 

to working with the Committee to address the challenges of maintaining the Department’s critical efforts to ensure America’s security and prosperity through vigorous 

and productive basic science and energy technology research programs. 

I am deeply grateful to the President for nominating me for this position. I have 

worked on energy research for my entire career, and if confirmed, this post will 

allow me to apply what I have learned to the management of the DOE science and 

energy research enterprise. 

I grew up in Texas: I was born in a small refinery town near Houston and then 

lived in Houston in high school. I studied chemical engineering as an undergraduate 

at Stanford and as a PhD student at the University of Minnesota. I interrupted my 

graduate studies to serve as a commissioned officer in the US Public Health Service, 

working initially at the National Air Pollution Control Administration and then at 

the Environmental Protection Agency when it was created. The experience in public 

service was extremely formative, and I returned to my graduate studies with helpful 

perspective. Those few years in Washington taught me that the government is full 

of talented people working hard on issues that matter, and I did a bit of growing 

up in the process. 

In the midst of that period, my wife Susan joined me in a partnership that is now 

in its 44th year and counting. I will be forever grateful to our respective roommates 

at Stanford, who organized the blind date that introduced us when we were undergraduate students. 

I worked briefly in Houston after my PhD for Shell Development Company, as a 

research engineer helping to develop enhanced oil recovery processes using high 

pressure carbon dioxide injection to produce oil that would otherwise be left behind 

in the subsurface. I then moved to the New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research 

Center at New Mexico Tech to lead a research group working in the same area. 

After seven great years there, I moved to Stanford University, where I have benefited from a much broader range of energy experience. I have had the good fortune 

to teach and do research with very talented students on the fundamentals of how 

complicated fluids flow in the rocks of the Earth’s crust. Those ideas turned out to 

apply directly to many aspects of geologic storage of carbon dioxide in porous rocks 

deep in the subsurface. That area has been an important area of focus for my research group for the last 15 years as we have worked to understand the subsurface 

portion of carbon capture and storage. 

I’ve also had a chance to learn about leading a wide-ranging research enterprise, 

first as dean of the Stanford School of Earth Sciences, working with geologists, geophysicists, petroleum engineers, and Earth system scientists. In 2002, I stepped 

down from my dean position to start the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP), 

a ten-year, $225 million industry-supported project of fundamental, pre-commercial 

research on technology options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. 

That project has created a portfolio of breakthrough research on ways to convert primary energy resources (such as sun, wind, coal, oil, or natural gas) into energy services (such as electricity, light and heat, or transportation) with improved efficiency 

and lower emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. In addition to research, 

that effort has supported the graduate study of about 750 graduate students and 

postdocs at Stanford and at 39 collaborating institutions around the world. Those 

students and many more at other universities will be needed to work on the energy 

transitions that lie ahead. 

The process of building the GCEP research portfolio taught me the value of working across disciplines, of attacking tough energy problems from differing science and 

10 

engineering perspectives, of research teams working together to solve problems that 

go beyond those that could be attacked with the methods available within an individual research group. 

Energy use is woven throughout the fabric of modern life. But it is also clear that 

the technology of energy conversions is only part of the challenge we face, and in 

recognition of that fact, we created the Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy in 

2009. Its goal is to make sure that students and faculty at Stanford are working 

on the full range of important energy issues: from the fundamental science, to the 

engineering and technology, to economics, policy, finance and regulatory issues, to 

the behavioral side of the energy choices all of us make in our daily lives. 

Our goal has been to harness the creativity and talent of 225 faculty members 

in 22 academic departments and create a vibrant, comprehensive conversation about 

all the important aspects of energy use among the community of energy students 

and faculty at Stanford. I note that the student Energy Club at Stanford is the largest student club on campus, an indication that our students are very engaged in 

these issues, as they should be. And I’m teaching a course for 60 Stanford freshmen 

this quarter on all the different ways of thinking about energy for the future. Interacting with those students gives me confidence that we can chart a productive energy path for the future. 

And finally, I have had the good fortune to participate in a variety of studies conducted by the National Academies’ National Research Council that have broadened 

my energy background as well. The most recent one was entitled America’s Energy 

Future. I know I have learned more from my fellow committee members than they 

learned from me, and I am grateful for the experience that effort provided. 

Let me close by saying that if I am confirmed, I very much look forward to working with all of you to continue to develop the wide-ranging portfolio of fundamental 

science, energy science and engineering, and technology that will provide the foundation for the energy future of the United States. 

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

any questions you have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Orr, thank you. You managed to summarize 

very well, so extra points for that. We’re going to make your prepared statement part of the record. 

Mr. Elkind. 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN ELKIND, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY (INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS), 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. ELKIND. Thank you very much, Chairman Wyden. Thank 

you, Senator Murkowski and members of the committee. I’m very 

pleased to be able to appear before you today. 

This is a particular honor for me to potentially, if I am confirmed, have this new association with the Department of Energy. 

As a matter of coincidence my family ties to the Department of Energy go back quite a ways. For the fact that my father was a researcher, who for a portion of his career in the 1960s and 1970s, 

worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory and at Argonne National Laboratory in those days under the Atomic Energy Commission and ERDA. 

But the fact that I’m in front of you today probably has more to 

do with my dad’s attitudes about career choices than anything else. 

When I was an undergraduate at the age of my oldest son, the advice that I got from my dad was to find a niche that I was interested in and to look at that opportunity as a chance, a life opportunity to work on issues that made me excited to spend time on 

every day. So his advice really was love what you do and do what 

you love, which indeed, was the case with him as well. 

For a little bit more than 25 years I have worked in relation to 

international energy issues, sometimes in government service. My 

first government role was in the Administration of President 

11 

George H.W. Bush, then in the Clinton Administration. I’ve also 

been in think tank positions and in private sector consulting. 

From all these experiences I know how important it is that the 

United States has strong and constructive international energy 

partnerships. That sense of excitement about building those relationships and making them work for the benefit of the United 

States is the opportunity that I would be very, very pleased to 

focus on, if I am confirmed into this position. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elkind follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN ELKIND, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF ENERGY (INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS), DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, members of the Committee: I am 

grateful for the opportunity to appear today as you consider my candidacy to be the 

Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs. 

I am honored to have been nominated for this post by President Obama. I also 

deeply appreciate the confidence that Secretary Moniz has expressed by asking me 

to serve in this capacity. 

I would like to introduce and thank my wife of twenty-five years, Suzanne Mintz, 

and two of our three sons who are here with me today, Benjamin and Noah. Our 

third son, Sam, is completing a college semester abroad. 

In 2009, I was appointed as the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. This was my second professional association with the Department, but by coincidence my family’s prior ties to 

DOE go back to my childhood. My father was a researcher who worked on cancer 

treatment and carcinogenesis. He spent portions of the 1960s and 1970s at the 

Brookhaven and Argonne National Laboratories that are now operated by DOE— 

in those days by the Atomic Energy Commission and later the Energy Research and 

Development Agency. 

The fact that I am before you today, however, had more to do with my dad’s attitudes about career choice than with the mere fact that I have known DOE and its 

precursors since childhood. When I was an undergraduate, my dad counseled me to 

find a professional niche that I felt passionate about, a place where I would want 

to make a contribution because of my own fascination with the issues at hand. 

Whether I made that contribution as a business person, an academic, or a government official wasn’t central. His advice was essentially: Do what you love, and love 

what you do. 

For a little more than twenty-five years, I have focused on international energy 

issues with that backdrop. I first worked on energy and environment issues in the 

federal government when I served at the Council on Environmental Quality under 

President George H.W. Bush. I served subsequently through the 1990s at positions 

in the Department of Energy, the Office of the Vice President, and the National Security Council staff. Later, I worked as a private energy consultant and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 

From these experiences, I know how important it is for the United States to work 

effectively with international partners on energy issues. We need strong international partnerships that allow us to understand where markets are heading, 

where there are opportunities for U.S. businesses, and where breakthroughs and 

flash points can emerge. 

I am proud of the progress we have made on many of these fronts during my current tenure at the Department, including establishing collaborations like the Clean 

Energy Ministerial and the International Partnership on Energy Efficiency Cooperation. These key partnerships have helped us to identify and share best practices in 

low-carbon energy technologies. Other bilateral engagements such as the U.S.-China 

Clean Energy Research Center and the U.S.-India Joint Clean Energy R&D Center 

are helping us forge new research partnerships and establish commercial ties on 

topics like carbon capture and sequestration, buildings energy efficiency, and nextgeneration biofuels. 

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the Senate, these are some of the 

areas that will be my focus. I also look forward to working with this Committee to 

identify additional opportunities to advance our energy economy. I hope to secure 

your support so that I might have that opportunity. 

12 

The CHAIRMAN. Well said. 

Ms. Suh. 

TESTIMONY OF RHEA SUH, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SUH. Mr. Chairman, ranking member and members of this 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Thank 

you also for the chance to meet with you in person. 

I am a child of the West. I was born and raised in Colorado, 

raised by Korean immigrant parents who, like many, found their 

way to that great State with dreams of freedom and a better life 

for their family. While my parents could not be here today, I would 

like to acknowledge them as well. They came to America with nothing and in turn gave me and my sisters everything. 

Like so many other Westerners I grew up reaping the benefits 

of the lands and waters managed by our Federal Government. My 

earliest memories are memories of being outside, fishing with my 

father, of exploring for fossils up in the foothills of the Rocky 

Mountains and going to camp in Rocky Mountain National Park. 

This tapestry of lands, the backdrop of my childhood, has influenced me and my values throughout my life. 

For the past 4 years I have served as the Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management and Budget at the Department of the Interior. 

I have had the privilege of working with each of the 9 bureaus on 

a wide array of issues. I have led the efforts to secure the resources 

to enable each of those bureaus to uphold their missions, but I 

have focused a concerted effort on ensuring that we manage those 

resources in a way that is both effective and efficient. 

In these challenging fiscal times I have saved the Department over $500 million and untold millions in cost avoidance including 

$160 million in real estate consolidations and $200 million in 

smarter purchasing agreements. 

While my most recent experience at the Department has focused 

more on administrative and fiscal policy, I have nearly 2 decades 

of experience in natural resource issues. I started out as a Senate 

staffer working for Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado where I worked on both energy and natural resource issues. 

I had the unusual opportunity during that time to work on both 

sides of the aisle spending 2 years on the Democratic side and a 

year on the Republican side. This unique circumstance profoundly 

shaped my views on policy and left me with the strong belief that 

collaboration, while not easy or straightforward, can result in the 

most creative and durable policy outcomes. 

These beliefs helped me in my tenure at both the Hewlett and 

the Packard Foundations where I continued to work on natural resource issues. In particular I supported the efforts to expand their 

array of voices and perspectives on conservation including those of 

hunters and anglers, indigenous communities and faith based organizations. 

I am now before you today as the President’s nominee as the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, a position that 

would allow me to focus more concertedly on the critical work of 

conservation. I come to this opportunity with great humility. It 

13 

would afford me the chance to work with 2 of the most storied and 

venerated agencies at Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the National Park Service. 

Americans love the outdoors. We love to hunt and fish. We love 

our parks. 

The National Refuge system is truly America’s backyard. These 

are the places where millions of us go to hunt and fish and explore 

and are among our Nation’s most popular pastimes. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service is uniquely positioned to welcome a new generation 

to be connected to this natural heritage that is our birthright as 

Americans. 

When the National Park Service celebrates its 100th anniversary 

in 2016 we will have an even greater opportunity to renew the 

bond that Americans have with their parks. The National Park 

Service’s second century is a defining moment offering us an opportunity to celebrate America’s natural and cultural history and to 

lay a strong sensible foundation for the next century of stewardship. 

From the time I hooked a rainbow trout with my dad I became 

the beneficiary of our Nation’s rich natural heritage. If confirmed 

I hope to continue this bounty by strengthening the opportunities 

for Americans both to be connected to and to benefit from the outdoors and by pursuing pragmatic, balanced solutions that contribute to conservation of the Department’s lands and waters for 

the benefit of all the great people of this country. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Suh follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RHEA SUH, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF FISH

AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to be here today. Thank you also for the opportunity to meet with 

many of you in person. 

I would like to acknowledge and thank my husband, Michael Carroll who agreed 

to come with me on this journey four years ago and my daughter Yeumi, who was 

a blessing for us nearly three years ago now. And while my parents-Chung Ha and 

Young Ja Suh-cannot be here today, I want to acknowledge them as well. They were 

young immigrants from Korea who came to this country in the early 60’s with nothing and in turn gave me and my sisters everything. From my love of the outdoors 

to my commitment to public service, I am instilled with their love of this country 

and I owe everything to their sacrifices and courage. 

For the past four years, I have had the honor of serving as the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the Department of the Interior. It is 

chiefly a management position that is focused on the financial and administrative 

policy for the Department. I have had the privilege of working with each of the nine 

bureaus on a broad array of issues, but I have primarily been responsible for leading efforts to secure the resources to enable each of the bureaus to uphold their missions but also to ensure that we manage those resources in a manner that is both 

effective and efficient. In these challenging fiscal times, I have led the enterprise 

to achieve more than $500 million in savings and untold millions in cost avoidance, 

including $160 million associated with real estate consolidations and $200 million 

in smarter purchasing agreements. I have also led the longer-term efforts around 

workforce and succession planning and the policy efforts on youth. 

I am now before you today as the President’s nominee for the Assistant Secretary 

for Fish, Wildlife and Parks-a position that would allow me to focus more 

concertedly on the critical work of conservation. 

For the members of the Committee whom I have not had the chance to get to 

know, I’d like to tell you a little bit about myself. 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 

14 

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. 

I come to this opportunity with great humility, as it would afford me the chance 

to work with two of the most storied and venerated agencies in the federal government: the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. These agencies 

are the caretakers of some of our nation’s most special places and most vulnerable 

species. And uniformly, I have never met a more passionate set of employees-dedicated in the missions of their organization and in their commitment to public service. At the top of the list are the directors of these agencies Dan Ashe and Jon Jarvis-public servants who have dedicated their careers to these special missions and 

to the critical work their organizations do on behalf of the American public. 

Before I joined the government four and a half years ago, I spent my career focused on conservation issues. I started off as a senate staffer for Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell, from my home state of Colorado, where I worked on energy 

and natural resource policy. I also had the unusual opportunity to work on both 

sides of the aisle during this time, spending two years on the Democratic side and 

a year on the Republican side. This unique circumstance profoundly shaped my 

views on policy and left me with the strong belief that collaboration, while often not 

easy or straightforward, can result in the most creative and durable policy outcomes. These beliefs helped me in my tenure as a program officer for both the Hewlett 

and the Packard foundations, where I continued to work on natural resource issues. 

Both institutions have a keen interest in building institutional capacity within the 

non-profit sector, and I focused much of my efforts on helping the variety of NGOs 

we worked with on strategic planning and on developing appropriate metrics to help 

evaluate progress towards their goals. I also supported a number of efforts designed 

to create opportunities that could not only balance economic development and conservation but also that saw those twin goals as inexorably linked. My foundation 

experience also uniquely equips me to be able to work on innovative public-private 

partnerships to advance successful models that leverage Federal resources with 

those provided by the philanthropic community, partners, and other interested entities. 

The opportunity to balance our economic needs with conservation is illustrated in 

fact that both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service are significant contributors to local economies. According to the Department’s FY2012 Economic Report, recreation alone drove an estimated 417 million visits to DOI managed sites, generating $45 billion to the American economy and supporting 372,000 

jobs. 

The national wildlife refuge system is truly America’s backyard-the places where 

millions of us go to hunt, fish, hike and explore the outdoors. Hunting and fishing 

are among our nation’s most popular pastimes; more than 41 percent of the US population 16 and older participated in wildlife-related outdoor recreation in 2011 and 

in some states, more people have hunting and fishing licenses than vote. However, 

as more and more children become attuned to technology and the internet rather 

than the natural chorus of the outdoors, the Fish and Wildlife Service can work to 

ensure that the next generation is also connected to the natural heritage that is our 

birthright as Americans. 

The National Park Service manages Interior’s most visited lands, and arguably 

the country’s best known and loved sites. These destinations draw visitors from 

across the globe, and these visitors support over $30 billion in economic activity. 

When the National Park Service celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2016, we will 

have an even greater opportunity to renew the bond that Americans have with their 

parks. The beginning of the National Park Service’s second century is a defining moment, offering us an opportunity to celebrate America’s historical, cultural and natural heritage and to lay a strong, sensible foundation for the next century of stewardship. 

Although it is clear that there are many challenges facing the two agencies, and 

conservation as a whole, I believe we have enormous opportunities in the near term. 

My skills in constituency building can help guide the agencies to ensure that our 

work is meaningful to all Americans, regardless of where they live or what cultural 

background they represent. And my experience in the Department, working side by 

side with these bureaus and others toward effective financial management, equip 

15 

me to assist them in a constrained budget environment to effectively utilize their 

resources. During my tenure at DOI and in my previous work, I have developed relationships across government and with diverse stakeholders that will assist me in 

fostering a pragmatic, collaborative approach to conservation that builds coalitions 

across all of our constituencies in the interests of the American public we serve. 

I am a child of the West. From the first time I hooked a rainbow trout with my 

Dad, I became the beneficiary of our nation’s rich natural heritage. If confirmed, I 

hope to continue the legacy of this bounty by connecting the next generation of 

American’s to their outdoors and of pursuing pragmatic, balanced conservation solutions that contribute to 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 opportunity to be here today and I would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Beaudreau. 

TESTIMONY OF TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET) 

Mr. BEAUDREAU. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Wyden 

and Ranking Member Murkowski. 

As Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich mentioned this morning, I am an Alaskan. We moved to Alaska in 1979 when my dad, 

a Vietnam veteran, was able to get a good job working in Prudhoe 

Bay on the North Slope and did the week on, week off routine up 

there. He also moved us to Alaska for the adventure of an outdoors 

life in the last frontier. He even considered moving us to Sitka at 

one point which the trajectory of my life probably would have been 

a lot different if he had done that. 

so on the one hand I saw firsthand what resource development 

means to the State of Alaska and to families like mine. On the 

other hand, for the same reasons many people live in Alaska, we 

enjoyed the outdoors, hunting, fishing, hiking and skiing. Everybody in Alaska appreciates the benefits of those blessings as well. 

So those are the values I carried with me when I joined the Interior Department in June 2010 to help the Administration’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Our charge from the President and from Secretary Salazar was 

to strengthen industry standards with respect to offshore oil and 

gas exploration and development and also to restore public confidence in regulatory oversight of that activity. Those were difficult 

times as we all remember. But you look at the Gulf of Mexico today 

and there are more rigs operating in the Gulf today then there 

were 3 years ago, prior to the spill. 

I talked to oil and gas executives about their plans for the Gulf 

of Mexico and they’re extremely optimistic for the area and are 

looking to bring additional rigs in. They asked—I asked them, you 

know, what do you think about it? He said, 3 years ago if you’d 

asked me would we be where we are today I would have said it was 

a long shot. But the investment is strong and the public’s confidence and our oversight is strong as well and the activity is being 

done more safely and more responsibly than ever before. 

So it’s that track record that I bring into the new position. It’s 

based on hard work, listening intently to a broad spectrum of 

stakeholders, working collaboratively with States, tribes and local 

16 

communities and thinking creatively and positively about solutions 

to seemingly intractable problems. 

Moving into Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and 

Budget, if concerned—or if confirmed, would place me as the Chief 

Financial Officer for the Department. Secretary Jewell, who is as 

you know an experienced businessperson and Chief Executive in 

her own right, has challenged us to take a hard look at the way 

DOI does business with an eye toward cutting red tape, finding efficiencies, working across organizations rather than in silos and 

saving resources in light of increasingly constrained budgets. I’ll be 

on point to build on some of the successes that Assistant Secretary 

Suh has made. It’s a challenge I look forward to with enthusiasm 

and energy. 

If confirmed I’ll carry all of those same core principles of hard 

work, active and genuine engagement, humility and creative problem solving with me into this new role. 

So, I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beaudreau follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the Committee, 

I am honored to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management and Budget. I am joined 

today by my wife, Carrie, and our children, Nellie and Auggie. I’d like to thank 

Grace Episcopal Day School for excusing their absences this morning. I have been 

with the Department of the Interior (DOI) for nearly three and a half years, and 

during this entire period of public service my family has been a constant source of 

support and inspiration, for which I am profoundly thankful. 

While I have appeared before this Committee previously in my capacity as the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and acting as the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM), I will take a moment 

to reintroduce myself. 

I was born in Colorado, where my mother is from, and was raised in Alaska. My 

father moved our family to Alaska for the outdoor adventure of a life in the Last 

Frontier and the opportunity for a Vietnam veteran to get a good job working in 

the Prudhoe Bay oil field on the North Slope. Because of my upbringing, I have a 

first-hand understanding of the importance of responsible resource development to 

the economic well-being of communities and families. Having grown up hunting, 

fishing, hiking and skiing in the vast Alaskan wilderness, I also have a deep appreciation for the special character of the American outdoors. We have a shared responsibility to conserve these wondrous spaces so that future generations have them to 

experience, enjoy and learn from. 

These are the values I brought to the Interior Department when I left my law 

practice in 2010 to join the Administration’s response to the Deepwater Horizon 

blowout and oil spill. The Macondo well was still flowing at the time, and the direction from the President and Secretary Salazar was to reform offshore drilling standards and oversight so that the American people can be confident that oil and gas 

development on our oceans, which is vital to our economy, is safe for workers and 

for the environment, and is overseen by strong, independent and effective regulators. 

Three years later, offshore oil and gas in the Gulf has rebounded strongly. There 

are more rigs working there today than prior to the spill, and this growth is expected to continue. I am proud to say as well that the activity is being conducted 

more safely and more responsibly, and is subject to stronger oversight, than ever 

before. 

We also have made substantial progress standing up new, renewable sources of 

energy both onshore and offshore. We are already more than halfway to the President’s goal of approving 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 

2020, and earlier this year successfully held the first two competitive offshore wind 

lease sales in federal waters. 

17 

I am proud of this track record, which has been premised on hard work, listening 

intently to a broad spectrum of stakeholders, working collaboratively with States, 

tribes and local communities, and thinking creatively and positively about developing solutions to seemingly intractable problems. I believe this track record, my 

values and my approach to the issues are my most important qualifications. 

I now look forward, if confirmed, to following my friend Rhea Suh as DOI’s Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget and to continuing this collaborative, pragmatic and creative approach to tackling many of the most significant 

challenges, as well as seizing the substantial opportunities, that are before the country and the Interior Department. 

As the primary steward of our shared landscapes and resources, DOI has a special 

place and set of responsibilities on behalf of the American people. The activities we 

oversee are an enormous economic engine for the country. In 2012, DOI’s programs 

contributed $371 billion to the United States’ economy and supported 2.3 million 

jobs across sectors including recreation and tourism, conventional and renewable energy development, grazing and timber harvests. Specifically, in 2012, there were 417 

million visits to DOI-managed lands, and recreational visits alone contributed an estimated $45 billion in economic activity, much of it benefitting local communities in 

rural areas. We also oversee the responsible development of approximately 23 percent of America’s energy supplies, and DOI is the largest supplier and manager of 

water across 17 Western states. Interior is responsible for maintaining our special 

relationships with the 566 federally-recognized Tribes, and provides services to more 

than 1.7 million American Indian and Alaska Native people. 

Secretary Jewell also has made it a major priority of the Department to strengthen connections between young people and the outdoors, so that new generations of 

Americans have the same formative experiences with the lands that are their 

shared birthright that I did growing up in Alaska. With tightening resources available for youth programs, it is imperative that we continue to aggressively leverage 

public investments as well as further develop partnerships with private institutions. 

Secretary Jewell, as an experienced business person and chief executive officer, 

also has challenged us to take a hard look at the way DOI does business, with an 

eye toward cutting red-tape, finding efficiencies, working across organizations rather 

than in silos, and saving resources in light of increasingly constrained budgets. 

As the Department’s chief financial officer, I would be on point for building on 

DOI’s successes in these areas, and it is a challenge that I look forward to with enthusiasm and energy. If confirmed, I will carry the same core principles of hard 

work, active and genuine engagement, humility and creative problem solving with 

me into this new role. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss my nomination with you this 

morning, and for your consideration. I look forward to answering your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beaudreau, well summarized and I appreciate it. 

I do want to note that you have great experience, but I’m not yet 

clear whether you have taken the test that Senator Murkowski introduced me to when I went to Alaska. That is whether you have 

eaten a graham cracker treated with LNG. Because I have done 

that, lived to tell about it and Senator Murkowski and I kid that 

that is something of a special ritual, a bipartisan ritual, we have 

here. 

But you have a long history and look forward to questions. 

So let’s begin quickly with that because of the hectic nature of 

the morning. 

I want to begin with you, you know, Dr. Orr, because, you know, 

right at the heart of what we need to do in this country is ground 

breaking research in the energy area. Focusing on innovation is 

what your position is all about. This is particularly important given 

the urgency of climate change. 

As you know, the NOAA report reflected 400 parts per million. 

If nothing serves as a wakeup call, that certainly, you know, ought 

to. So we see your position as the ideal spot to help us innovate 

and let me repeat that, innovate, out of our way of the climate 

18 

challenge. This is right at the heart of how we, you know, get out 

of this. 

I’d like to just start by asking you in your view what are the biggest opportunities for transformational type innovation that’s going 

to let us, you know, fight climate change? 

Mr. ORR. Senator, thank you for that question. 

I’ve really worked on this exact question for most of the last 

dozen years at Stanford. So I’ll give you a couple of examples from 

that experience just to, sort of, frame the conversation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Give us a couple of examples of the past, but I 

don’t want this question to go by without your giving us some insight onto what you want to do for the future—— 

Mr. ORR. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Or for the days ahead. 

Mr. ORR. Yes. 

So I’ll give you 2 quick examples. 

One is batteries. 

The conventional lithium ion battery uses a carbon atom to hook 

up to a lithium ion. If you replace that with silicon you can put 4 

lithium ions next to the silicon. But you have to be careful how you 

do this because if you do it in a bulk material it just expands and 

contracts and destroys itself. But if you use nano-structured materials, tiny little rods or tiny little particles, shielded in the right 

way, you can build a battery with higher energy density and nice 

long life. 

So the reason—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Nano materials and batteries. 

mr. ORR. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would be an area. 

Mr. ORR. So the idea of nano materials, catalysts and using those 

small structures to control properties gives us a whole set of design 

opportunities for the future. That could change transportation dramatically. 

Another application of the same kinds of ideas is catalysts for 

taking electricity and converting it into a fuel by basically pulling 

off one of the oxygens off of CO2 making CO2, CO and then you can 

transform that chemically. 

Now we have some very promising results from that so far. 

There is some ways yet to go. But it’s an example of how taking 

the links between chemistry, material science and the ability to 

make small structures can give us a huge set of opportunities for 

the future. 

Now in terms of applying that in the Department of Energy, if 

confirmed, then the way we’ve tried to do this in the past is really 

to build teams that lay out research agendas that could really go 

after big problems with breakthrough potential. We should do that 

going forward. If confirmed I will work very hard to try to make 

that happen. 

The CHAIRMAN. You had me at hello when you mentioned nano 

materials because in, sort of, my previous Senate service, George 

Allen and I wrote the 21st Century Nano Technology legislation 

that still guides a big part of the research. So I’m very pleased that 

you’re moving ahead on that. 

Let’s shift to energy storage. 

19 

Today the Department is releasing an R and D plan for energy 

storage which I first requested from one of your predecessors, Steve 

Koonin. I hope that the fact that it took so long to get this done 

doesn’t indicate some sort of inability to think outside the box here 

because that’s what it’s really going to take. 

We’ve got 4 different DOE offices, ARPA–E, Office of Energy Efficiency, the Office of Electricity and the Office of Science. Part of 

the reason that your office is being reorganized is Secretary Moniz, 

correctly in my view, wants better coordination between basic research programs and technology development programs. Energy 

storage is exactly the kind of program that is going to take this 

kind of department wide approach. 

I want to make sure, as we talked about in the office, that this 

report that is being put out today does not just find its way to the 

gazillions of other kinds of reports stockpiled, you know, somewhere in the Forrestal, you know, Building. So I want to announce 

today that I am naming David Berick of the committee as the point 

person. He’s going to be the person responsible in working with you 

to get this plan, you know, implemented. 

So tell us your thoughts with respect to how you’re going to proceed. You’re going to see a lot of Mr. Berick because he is going 

to be all over this to get this actually implemented. Give us your 

thoughts on that. 

Mr. ORR. Senator, thanks for that. 

I’m going to suppress my professorial urge to launch into a discussion of why the energy storage problem is so interesting from 

the short time scale to take the millisecond variations out of wind 

to hydro to longer time scales. But it’s a very interesting area. It 

has applications across many parts of the energy space and the 

reason that there are multiple groups at the Department of Energy 

that are thinking about it is exactly that. 

Now I haven’t seen the plan yet. But if I’m confirmed, you can 

bet that I’ll be in there pitching it. It’s a really interesting area. 

It gives us a vehicle for testing ideas about how to bring groups together, to lay out a research plan that really can lead to breakthroughs in a very important area. 

We have some experience in trying to do this at Stanford and 

we’ve have some tricks that have worked well for us. If confirmed, 

I’ll do my best to get those working at the Department of Energy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Get up to speed quick because I’ve indicated and 

talked with the Secretary. I’ve talked to you. This is one of my top, 

top priorities. Energy storage is one of those transformational opportunities. 

I mean if we’re serious, for example, about grid reliability one of 

the best ways to attack the grid reliability issue is to have a comprehensive energy storage plan. It is sure we’ve got plenty of energy stored if you have a Hurricane Sandy or a tragedy like that. 

So we’re going to work very closely with you. Appreciate it. 

I’m over my time. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I’ll use this first round to stick with our DOE nominees. 

Let me go to you, Mr. Elkind. 

20 

We’re seeing a really encouraging situation on the ground in this 

country, certainly on private lands, with the dramatic oil and natural gas production that we’re seeing taking place on, again, State 

and private lands primarily. But I would assume that what we’re 

seeing with this increased production would influence your views 

as they relate to international responsibilities. We’re going to be 

having here on the committee a hearing, probably in January now, 

on the geopolitics of oil, the geopolitics of natural gas and the fact 

that as a Nation we really move from a position of scarcity to one 

of greater abundance. 

Just very generally and you’ve got about a minute to do it. Can 

you describe some of the geopolitical impacts of our oil and natural 

gas boom? Do you think that this has helped strengthen our Nation’s position and would potential exports of either oil or natural 

gas or other types of energy, for that matter, further enhance or 

diminish this impact? 

Just generally the geopolitical impact here of what we’re seeing 

in our Nation now with increased production. 

Mr. ELKIND. Senator, thank you very much for the question. It’s 

a very, very important question. This has been such a dramatic development over the last several years to watch this very impressive 

and sustained growth in our domestic oil and natural gas production. 

I will just note very briefly that of course the domestic implications in terms of job creation, in terms of other benefits inside of 

our borders are not to be glanced past. 

With regard to the impacts in terms of the global scene they also 

have been very important. There are opportunities for countries 

that have had relationships with certain suppliers to now have 

competing supplies. That is a very positive development on the natural gas side. 

In terms of oil it is, after all, a very liquid, global market—truly 

a global oil market. But having additional supplies in the marketplace makes it easier to move through times when one sees, for example, production going offline from some of the traditional suppliers like Libya. 

So it’s a very important issue. It is one that has my full attention 

in my current role. If I am confirmed, please rest assured that this 

is something that will be very, very, much a focus that I will be 

watching very closely. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you for that. 

Let me ask you, Dr. Orr, when we talk about those transformational energy sources one of the things that I have been involved with over the years is trying to advance the research on 

methane hydrates. We reauthorized the Methane Hydrate Research Act of 2005. I’ve been pushing the Administration to make 

sure that we’ve got adequate funding out there for the program. 

I think we’re seeing far less than we need. We had a test back 

in January 2012 up in Prudhoe that seemed to show that methane 

can be made to flow from these hydrates by replacing it with carbon dioxide. You know, when you’re talking about how we’re going 

to be able to utilize sequestered gas. 

I think these are some advances that are proving promising. 

21 

Clearly Japan is recognizing that. They’ve been working with 

Alaska on some of this research. Earlier this year they conducted 

their own follow up test. They reported some substantial progress. 

Do you see methane hydrates as a priority area for the Department’s research budget? Just, kind of, generally where are you on 

methane hydrates? 

Mr. ORR. Senator, thanks for the question. 

Methane hydrates are interesting structures. They’re kind of 

cage-like structures which the gas molecules can be trapped. 

It’s pretty clear that there’s a very large resource out there and 

certainly Alaska is one of the places—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. ORR. Yes. 

Alaska is one of the places that these things form and they’re actually widespread on the ocean floor. So there’s no question there’s 

a bigger source. 

It’s a tough one to get to economically because you need to work 

offshore or in places where sustaining production for the long time 

to pay out the costs can be a challenge. 

So obviously I’m not in office so I’m not as knowledgeable about 

the details of the DOE program as I should be. But it’s clear that 

there are good science questions to be answered and then to move 

to the question of engineering to be able to take advantage of these 

things. 

It’s an area that interests me personally. I’ll look forward to 

working on it if I’m confirmed. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. Obviously it’s always a 

question about budget and resources when we’re looking toward additional research dollars. But I’d look forward to learning more 

about your views on this as you move into the job here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll move to the DOI nominees next. 

The CHAIRMAN. Excellent. 

Senator Murkowski and I work very closely with Senator 

Barrasso on all the issues that come before the committee. We welcome you today, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Suh, thank you very much for taking time to come and visit 

with me and my staff on some of the issues. I want to talk a bit 

about your views on natural gas. 

A couple of years ago, actually 2007, you made a statement that 

natural gas development is and I’ll quote, easily the single greatest 

threat to the ecological integrity of the West.’’ 

Now natural gas development is, as you said, ‘‘easily the single 

greatest threat to the ecological integrity of the West.’’ Now I find 

this viewpoint goes, kind of, beyond what is in the minds of the 

members of this committee. It’s out of the mainstream. 

I mean, we’ve had issues of others who’ve come to talk to this 

committee about natural gas. Expanding responsible natural gas 

development is one of the biggest economic success stories in the 

country. Create thousands of jobs in places like Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, West Virginia, Louisiana and others. 

So if confirmed there are pending issues that you’ll be in charge 

of and you’ll have influence that will allow you to essentially stop 

natural gas production. 

22 

You’re going to be in charge of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

where you’ll have influence and authority to set policy. 

You’ll be able to influence decisions as to where to designate critical habitat which can lock up millions of acres of land from natural gas production. 

They’ll be numerous decisions that will be made during your tenure as to whether to list or to designate either crucial, critical habitat for different species, whether it’s sage grouse in 8 Western 

States, potential listings of the lesser prairie chicken in Oklahoma, 

the Gunnison sage grouse in Colorado, your home State and in 

Utah, to name only a few. 

You know, you’ll also have influence over future species, the sue 

and settle agreements and to issue new rules that can restrict and 

lock up more land and ocean from natural gas production offshore 

and onshore. 

In addition the National Park Service, which you will also oversee in this position, has also begun commenting on BLM hydraulic 

fracturing rules. 

So, given the views stated by you in 2007 I want to know how 

members of the Senate that support natural gas could support your 

nomination. 

Ms. SUH. Senator Barrasso, thank you very much for the question and also for the time that you spent with me personally. I appreciate it. 

As a member of this Administration and personally I believe 

strongly in the President’s all of the above energy strategy of which 

natural gas is a hugely important component. My work at the Hewlett Foundation and at the Packard Foundation was really focused 

on trying to enable conservation solutions that were balanced, balanced with development as well as preservation. We worked hard 

to ensure that that all of those efforts were efforts that ultimately 

were respected, I think, the economic needs and aspirations of local 

communities. 

So recognizing the importance of not only natural gas and the 

overall, kind of, energy needs of the country and opportunities of 

the country, but specifically natural gas’ role in the economic development and livelihood of local communities throughout the country. 

I respect the role of it, understand the need for it and if confirmed 

in this new position, will work hard to ensure that the decisions 

that are made, specifically by the Fish and Wildlife Service, are 

made in such a way that recognize, again, that this larger question 

of balance. 

Senator BARRASSO. You know, I support natural gas. I think saying natural gas is the single greatest threat to the ecology of the 

West really doesn’t sound like the support is there fundamentally 

for natural gas. I’ve got concerns. 

I’d also like to read from an October 31st of this year Op Ed by 

the Washington Examiner on your nomination by Ron Arnold. It 

was entitled, ‘‘Another Big Green Power Player moves up in 

Obama’s Washington.’’ 

I’m sure you’ve seen the article. The article references your background being a program officer for the William and Flora Hewlett 

Foundation, you just mentioned that, your work with the David 

and Lucille Packard Foundation and your leadership roles of the 

23 

Environmental Grant Makers Association. The article states that 

at Hewlett, Suh managed the multimillion dollar Western Grants 

portfolio doling out hundreds of thousands to green groups who 

sued the government to block productive ventures and usurp private property rights at the Federal, State and local levels from the 

Dakotas to Texas to the Pacific. 

So after years of you serving 2 big foundations and the Environmental Grant Makers Association you then joined the Interior Department. But even after you joined the Interior Department you 

stated before the Environmental Grant Makers 25th anniversary 

that quote, ‘‘I look forward to working with you, my colleagues.’’ 

You’re not there anymore. You’re at the Department of Interior, 

but you’re still saying, ‘‘I look forward to working with you, my colleagues, mentors and friends to utilize the skills and talents of the 

EGA community to advance,’’ you said, ‘‘a more resilient world and 

a resilient movement.’’ 

So my question is given your lifetime of funding activist groups, 

opposing natural gas production, how can the members of this committee suddenly expect you to change your views if you’re confirmed? 

Ms. SUH. Thank you again for that question. 

Perhaps I can take the opportunity to clarify my views. 

Once again, I think both as demonstrated in my personal experience working for this committee and a member of this committee 

as well as my experience in the Foundation world where I focused 

my grant making not on activities that were opposed to, again, the 

needs of local community and the participations of local communities and local stakeholders on conservation decisions. In fact, the 

vast majority of the work that I did both at the Hewlett Foundations and then the Packard Foundations were really designed 

about raising those voices. 

As I said in my opening statement I worked considerably on a 

suite of grant making at both institutions to enable a broader suite 

of voices to be heard in the conservation movement, voices of hunters and anglers, voices of communities of color, voices of native people. I can give you concrete examples throughout the West where 

I focused my efforts on ensuring that those voices of local communities were heard and balanced against the voices that were just 

coming from Washington, DC. 

So I believe that with each and every single grant that I recommended during my tenure at both the Hewlett and Packard 

Foundations, those grants were balanced in a way that, again, both 

enable the opportunity to think about conservation, think about the 

resilience, again, of our conservation opportunities with the needs, 

aspirations and desires of local communities. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience because my time has 

expired. I would just say this is a statement given just less than, 

about a year ago, the fall of 2012. I just think that this is not a 

position to which you’ve been nominated, in my opinion, to promote 

any movement. So, you know, I question whether this is really the 

right position for you given your deeply held views. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

24 

Let me explain to our witnesses. 

I have to also be in the Finance Committee because we’re getting 

ready to make some transformational changes as it relates to physician reimbursement and health care. I’m going to give each of you 

an additional question just to highlight an additional issue with 

each of you. We have the good fortune that Senator Murkowski will 

wrap up and that will be a big plus. 

I’m going to want to have in writing from you, Dr. Orr, and let’s 

say a week from Friday, your views with respect to what to do 

about methane leakage. Senator Murkowski talked about, touched 

on the methane issue. But I feel very strongly that we ought to be 

pushing to get at less than 1 percent leakage from the well to the 

consumer. 

We do that, it’s going to make a big difference. This is an opportunity for a balanced approach as it relates to natural gas. 

I talked about I’ve been a strong supporter of, you know, natural 

gas. I’d like to think I was for natural gas before it became cool, 

50 percent cleaner than the other fossil fuels. We’ve got to get at 

some of these critical environmental issues. One of them is methane leakage. 

The CHAIRMAN. For you, Mr. Elkind, I’m particularly interested 

in your response to the question that we’ll give you in writing 

about our relationship with China. 

China has become the world’s largest importer of crude. It’s a 

role the United States used to hold. There are a host of issues with 

respect to our relationship with China that we’ll want your answers for. 

The CHAIRMAN. For you, Ms. Suh, what we need is what we 

talked about in the office. That is your thoughts about fresh ideas 

for funding the maintenance, you know, backlog. 

What I’ll ask you in writing is particularly to give us your sense 

of some approaches that haven’t been tried, you know, to date. Dr. 

Coburn has worked with Senator Murkowski and I. We want to 

make sure that we’re looking at every opportunity, particularly to 

bring the private sector into the maintenance backlog. 

So we’ll need your thoughts on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. For you, Mr. Beaudreau, as we indicated in the 

office because you’re the policy management and budget person, 

what we’re particularly interested in is having your thoughts, as 

Senator Murkowski, Senator Landrieu and I look to this whole 

question, you know, of revenue sharing, which is a jobs issue. It’s 

an environmental issue. It’s a taxpayer’s, you know, issue. 

What I’m particularly interested in here is trying to find a way 

to make common cause between all the communities where there’s 

Federal land and Federal water. The meetings in these communities all, pretty much, look the same. They’re sensible people trying to figure out a way to have jobs and to protect our treasures. 

If we were starting over I don’t think we’d come close to doing 

what we got today, this bizarre hodgepodge of different revenue 

structures and revenue sharing kinds of programs. But you never 

get to, sort of, start from scratch. So Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu, in my view, have been very constructive, you know, 

in terms of trying to think again on these kinds of issues. I’m comVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA
25 

mitted to working with them. So we’re going to ask you some questions about that in writing. 

The CHAIRMAN. So that’s what you’ll be getting. We’re going to 

need it a week from Friday. 

With that, Senator Murkowski, I’m just so appreciative of all 

your help and happy to have you wrap up. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright. Thank our nominees. I intend to support 

each of you here in the very near future when we’re able to have 

a vote. 

Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To 

our nominees again apologize for the, kind of, disruptive process. 

But it’s kind of a weird week. 

Let me go to both you, Ms. Suh and Mr. Beaudreau. We’re in, 

kind of an interesting situation. The hearing is a little bit interesting because you’re basically kind of swapping places here, if you 

will. 

Mr. Beaudreau, your nomination to Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget where Ms. Suh has been. I don’t 

think I’m making any news by saying that I have appreciated your 

leadership, Mr. Beaudreau, in so many of these issues that impact 

us, particularly up North, the leadership that you have clearly 

demonstrated on some policy issues that required, kind of, paving 

some new ground there as we look to explore and produce in the 

Arctic. The fact that you are moving to, what I would consider to 

be more of a desk job, in the sense that the focus in on more of 

the administrative and the budget end of it. 

I’ve expressed my concerns to you that I don’t want this to be 

moving backward in any way. Not that I would suggest that focusing on the budget piece of it is not equally important. But I want 

that assurance that you still remain engaged in the policy level, the 

decisionmaking that goes on and recognizing that within the Department and under this new Secretary there are different management styles. You’ve indicated that you think that this is a more, 

kind of a kitchen cabinet type of an approach to management. 

But it is important to me to know that you will continue to be 

involved in so many of these initiatives where you have really led. 

The interagency working group on Alaska energy is a very specific 

example of that where you bring together the high level officials to 

advance energy developments, streamline the permitting process. 

You—the leadership that you’ve demonstrated as the Acting Chair, 

I think, has been very important. 

So I’d like the assurance that you will remain committed to not 

only being part of this group, but remaining the Chair of this group 

and continuing to lead on these policy initiatives that I think we 

all recognize are going to be very critical going forward. 

Mr. BEAUDREAU. Yes, thank you for that, Senator Murkowski 

and for the vote of confidence. 

As you know, and we’ve discussed, I’m heavily invested in all of 

these issues, resource issues, the interplay with resource development and responsible conservation at a landscape level. I believe 

from the Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget 

position I can actually take a broader perspective on all those 

26 

issues and help us move forward and build on the gains we’ve 

made so far as both a naturally situated coordinating role across 

all the bureaus in the Department, but also to provide the benefit 

of my experience and my counsel to the Secretary and to the Deputy Secretary and the other members of the Department in their 

leadership roles. 

I wouldn’t be interested in this position unless I was able to 

carry forward to all those issues. As you know, I’m pretty heavily 

invested in them, including the issues relating to Alaska. With respect to the interagency working group on permitting in Alaska, 

that is a tremendous innovation that we’ve made there. I actually 

think it has broader application elsewhere in the country as well, 

that type of approach, of bringing in the entire Federal family as 

well as other stakeholders, local communities, local tribes and 

other interests, bringing them to the table to try to work through 

the difficult issues that are involved in coming up with the right 

answers and right solutions on permitting major, major projects. 

So again, I’d bring that perspective into this role and I’ll carry 

it forward. I also expect to be and to remain very visible, very involved on a host of issues related to Alaska including continuing 

in a leadership role with the working group. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. I will acknowledge that 

that does give me some comfort to know that not only your involvement on the Alaska oil and gas issues will be a prominent part of 

your responsibilities as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management 

and Budget, that you’ll continue with the working group and continue to work as these regs are developed for oil and gas exploration in Alaska. 

I think it’s important to have your leadership there. I want it 

made very clear that I have that confidence in you. I think many 

do. I don’t want us to be going backward at a time when we need 

to be making forward progress. 

Ms. Suh, when we met in my office and I appreciate the time 

that you gave me, I will admit I was a little bit surprised that 

given your tenure as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management 

and Budget, that you were clear with me that you had really not 

been engaged in that much from a policy perspective, particularly 

as those issues related to the State of Alaska whether it was 

ANWR or more parochial things like Izembek or legacy wells. I was 

concerned after our meeting. I’ll be very frank with you in this 

forum because the issues that are front and foremost for us as 

Alaskans are really key to our everyday opportunity to either have 

an economy of any sort or be able to access, just be able to access 

healthcare which is what the Izembek road is all about. 

So I think you’ve got a pretty steep learning curve here when it 

comes to those policy implications on a State like Alaska where the 

Federal landlord is so present there. So I’m curious to know in your 

current position as Policy, Management and Budget, how you describe the importance of what you have been doing verses what you 

will now be doing which is really taking over the reins of some very 

significant agencies whether it’s Fish and Wildlife, whether it’s 

BLM, whether it’s Park Service? Moving from that more administrative focus, which is what I understand your focus was, to one 

now where it’s really big picture policy initiatives. 

27 

Can you give me the level of comfort that I’m seeking as you’re 

presenting your credentials for this nomination? 

Ms. SUH. Ranking Member, thank you very much for that question and also for the opportunity to take so much time out of your 

schedule to meet with me. I found the meeting incredibly helpful. 

If I wasn’t clear in articulating the role that I have at the Department, how it interacts with policy, let me take the opportunity now 

to talk a little bit more about that. 

As the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, 

again, you know I’m primarily responsible for budget formulation 

and execution. As you know as an appropriator often times the 

budget process is the tail that wags the dog. So I have been involved in every single one of the major policy priorities from Secretary Salazar to now Secretary Jewell. Ensuring, again, we have 

the resources and the resources are deployed in such a way that 

we can stand up those priorities, energy priorities, conservation 

priorities, youth priorities. 

So I have been engaged on policy at those levels, but I have certainly not played the kind of role that my colleague, Mr. 

Beaudreau, has played as kind of more the forward facing policy 

role as it relates to any of the segments of the Department. 

Let me also take an opportunity to talk a little bit about my 

Alaska experience. Now, again, while I’ve been at the Department 

it has—I have taken more of an administrative view of the role 

that I seek. But that has afforded me some opportunity to interact 

with issues related to Alaska. 

We’ve worked on local hire issues which I know has been a 

hugely important issue for you. 

We’ve also worked on trying to improve aviation contracting. 

So I am familiar with the kind of on the ground issues as they 

relate to, kind of, the appropriate management of our organizations. 

But beyond that I have had quite a bit of experience in working 

on natural resource issues, policy issues, as they relate to your 

great State of Alaska. I mean, I think I’ve been to Alaska probably 

a dozen times. The first time I ever salmon fished was out in the 

Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. 

Some of the grants I was referring to when I answered Senator 

Barrasso’s question were grants that we made in Alaska. Let me 

point you to 2 in particular. 

We worked for 4 years, providing 4 years of support when I was 

at the Hewlett Foundation, to the Cup’ik community out in Chevak 

to actually map out their subsistence rights so they could work 

more, to improve their relationship with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to assert their subsistence rights. 

We worked on a variety of different issues in Southeast Alaska 

as they related to the Tongass Roundtable, working with local timber owners as well as mayors to try to figure out a way to come 

together to preserve the opportunity of that industry while trying 

to create an opportunity for long term conservation. 

Those types of balanced approaches, not only I think represent 

the kind of policy vision I have for the role that I will take, but 

they also represent, I think, perhaps a little bit more knowledge 

28 

about Alaska issues, about communities, about native people than 

I was able to convey during our meeting. 

You know, there’s a ton of stuff to learn in Alaska. I want to be 

quite humble about the fact, I mean, it’s the largest State in the 

country. As you said in your 2011 speech, you know, if you superimpose it on the map of the United States, it would span from Florida all the way to California. 

There’s a ton I have left to learn about Alaska. I have left to 

learn about ANILCA and ANCSA. I’m eager to do so because I recognize the importance of Alaska, not only for Alaska, but for America. 

I am deeply interested in working with you and building a good 

relationship with your staff so that I can get up to speed on the 

issues that you care about and that I can spend more time on the 

ground in Alaska. I’m not just interested in going up to Alaska to 

take scenic view tours on bright, sunny days. Whenever you want 

me there, whether it’s the spring, summer, fall, winter, I will be 

there and I very much look forward, if confirmed, to having a good 

working relationship with you and your staff. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate your willingness to recognize 

that you have some things to learn. We’d certainly would be working with you on that. 

What I was hoping to do with the questions of both of you, keep 

in mind we’re kind of trading spaces here between the 2 of you. Mr. 

Beaudreau has assured me that even though that the title is Policy, Management and Budget, he’s going to not only be focused on 

the budget/management part of it, but he’s also going to have that 

policy role. 

Yet, Ms. Suh, you have confirmed with me that in your years in 

this position your focus has not been on that policy, but it has been 

on the budget/management side. 

I want to make sure that you, Mr. Beaudreau, are not going to 

be locked into the budget/management, as important as that is, I 

want to know that that policy piece continues. I think that you 

have the credibility and the support within the Administration to 

make sure that you do insert yourself that way. I just want to 

make it very clear, for the record, that that is my expectation here. 

My colleague is here from West Virginia. I will defer to him. I 

thank you. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you so much, Madame Chairman. 

To all of you, thank you for being here. I appreciate you all, your 

testimonies and your commitment to our great country. 

Dr. Orr, you do know the State I come from and we try to do everything. We’re really, we’re all in. We’re doing it all. 

So, I guess my first question to you, sir, would be the EIA in the 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency, has stated the 

need for all of the above really. They’re relying on coal and natural 

gas and so much nuclear mix and renewables coming on. Do you 

agree with their forecast in findings of how much and I will state 

coal, how much fossil will be needed for the next 2 to 3 decades 

for our energy mix? 

Mr. ORR. Senator, thanks for the question. 

29 

I have to say I had not delved hugely, deeply into the process by 

which EIA constructs those estimates. I don’t have reason to doubt 

them. But I’m not fully briefed on the details. 

But I will say that—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I think it’s 35 percent, you know, for the next 

2, 3 decades. 

Mr. ORR. Yes, the diversified energy system is exactly what we 

do want. We need to have a variety of primary energy resources 

and a variety of ways to transform those into the energy services 

that we all use, electricity and transportation and all those kinds 

of things. 

So, I think that there’s no question that there will be—— 

Senator MANCHIN. We need all of the above. I mean—— 

Mr. ORR. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator MANCHIN. Any reasonable person. 

But you understand we’re running into some pretty strong 

headwinds as far as in the State that’s produced most of the energy 

and exported a lot of energy and kept this country where it is 

today. But our people are very skeptical about having to work 

against our government rather than our government working for 

us. 

What we’re saying to the Department of Energy, you all have 

been the ones recommended to the EPA what new technologies 

were feasible and doable and had come to fruition on a commercial 

scale? I think that you’ve recognized we have not had one commercial carbon capture sequestration, commercial. We’ve been able to 

show through demonstrations but we don’t have anything commercial on operational for, let’s say, a year. 

But yet everything we have is the new source performance standards, everything is moving to that direction before we can continue 

forward. The uncertainty is what I think, I’m concerned about, the 

uncertainty and the policies of the EPA. I don’t know whether that 

you believe and you feel that you should have more oversight or 

more input to what direction they’re going or tell them what’s feasible. 

But I’ve always said if it’s unattainable, it’s unreasonable to put 

those benchmarks when we haven’t been proven to meet them and 

don’t have technology. 

I don’t know what your feelings. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to on the 

rest of you all, but this is so important to, I think, our Nation, the 

energy and definitely to the State of West Virginia. 

Mr. ORR. So, Senator, thanks. 

The role of the Department of Energy, as I understand it, has 

been to work on advanced coal technologies and clean coal technologies, in particular the idea of carbon capture and storage. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Mr. ORR. Of course I’m not in office, but if confirmed, this is an 

area that of course I will have to pay a lot of attention to. 

I do have some experience looking back in my own career both 

with enhanced oil recovery and some with trying to understand the 

subsurface part of the carbon capture and sequestration. 

Senator MANCHIN. If I may, because I know we’re going to be 

time constrained here. I want to make sure I can and I’m so sorry. 

30 

I’m not interrupting you, sir, but I want to give you a little bit different perspective of this. 

The Department of Energy has had $8 billion for research and 

development. It’s been laying there for since 2, 9, I think. I don’t 

understand. Not one penny or one award or one grant has been approved for new fossil research or technology or anything driven toward that direction to find the new technologies, if you will. 

With 8 billion tons of coal being burnt in the world and everyone 

is identifying and trying to put the oneness and saying it’s—and 

I’m looking at basically for answers. But if we burn less than one 

billion tons of coal and have some of the most reliable, affordable 

and dependable energy what are you going to do with the other 7 

billion tons that’s being burned in the world if we don’t find the 

technology? How are you going to find the technology if you don’t 

partner up with the private sector to spend some of that $8 billion 

to try to move the ball forward? 

Mr. ORR. Senator, that’s clearly an important question. It’s one 

that matters. I know only the broad outlines from the outside. 

But I do understand that there is work in progress to invest 

those dollars. If I’m confirmed then this will be an area where I’ll 

be happy to work with you and communicate with you about what’s 

going on. 

Senator MANCHIN. I sure look forward to that, too. 

I don’t mean to skip over the 3 of you all. But as you can—and 

I’ve heard your testimonies and your backgrounds and everything 

seems, I believe that you’re sitting there for the right reasons. I appreciate that. 

I think Doctor, you are too. We need help. We need help basically 

in getting it all in energy policy. 

West Virginia has been a heavy lifter for many, many years. We 

do coal. We do natural gas. We’ve been very blessed with all the 

resources. 

We have one of the largest wind farms east of the Mississippi, 

so we’re all in. I’ve taken our Ranking Member here with me. She’s 

seen West Virginia. We’re willing to do everything and anything. 

But we just want people to recognize we’re just trying to continue 

to provide the energy this country needs. We’re getting the living 

crap beat out of us by our own government. That doesn’t seem to 

look at what’s feasible. 

When your EIA is saying you’re going to be needing this resource 

and then I talk to all the utilities they’re saying because of the 

EPA they’re making us make decisions that’s not good for our portfolio. It’s definitely not good for the American public for us to get 

so lopsided in our portfolio that we can’t get dependable, reliable 

and affordable energy. Coal is such a major mix of that. 

That’s all I’m asking for is a realistic, sympathetic look to what 

we can do and what we need to do for our country. So I do look 

forward to working with you, sir. I would hope that you would be 

very accessible for that. 

Mr. ORR. I will look forward to it. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

31 

Ms. Suh, during the recent government shut down the State of Arizona provided about $465 thousand to temporarily open the 

Grand Canyon, the National Park. Likewise, in 1995, the State of 

Arizona provided $370 thousand to temporarily reopen the park 

during the shutdown that occurred that year. In both instances 

Congress retroactively appropriated funding for the Park Service 

that covered the shutdown period. In 1995 the Park Service subsequently refunded the amount that was spent by the State of Arizona. 

This year the Park Service has retained this funding creating, 

kind of a shutdown windfall for the Department, if you will. Can 

you explain why? Why the Department has chosen to act differently this time? 

Ms. SUH. Senator, thank you for that question. 

It is my understanding that we require Congressional authorization in order to repay the States. If Congress so chooses to provide 

us that authorization, we would be happy to pay the States back. 

Senator FLAKE. Was that authorization received in 1995? 

Ms. SUH. I’m not aware of the specifics of the legislation that was 

passed when it reopened the government. But, yes, I believe we 

had the authority with that appropriations or with that continuing 

resolution to do so. 

Senator FLAKE. My understanding was that Congressional reauthorization or the kind of legislation you’re seeking was not provided in 1995. So if additional legislation or authorization was not 

provided in 1995 and the Department or the Park Service refunded 

the State, will you do the same this time? 

Ms. SUH. I assure you it is not by a simple matter of choice that 

we are not refunding the funding that we received from the States 

during that period of time. We believe that we lack the authorization to actually transfer that money back to the States. 

I’m happy to work with you and your staff to, as well as with 

our Solicitor’s office to look into that matter in more detail to try 

to come to some clarity about the way we can resolve this. 

Senator FLAKE. That—can you just assure me that you won’t require anything this time that you didn’t acquire last time? 

Ms. SUH. Again, not having been here in 1995 and not being familiar with what was actually required at that time, I can only 

speak for what I believe is required now. I understand that we 

need Congressional authorization in order to pay the States back. 

If we receive that from Congress, we would be happy to pay them 

back. 

Senator FLAKE. You mentioned that you’re happy to work with 

us in that regard. We sent a letter or the Arizona delegation, all 

of us, Republicans and Democrats, to the Department on November 

13th. We’ve not heard anything back. 

What are we to believe if you say you want to work with us, but 

we wrote more than a month ago and haven’t heard anything back? 

Ms. SUH. I apologize for the tardiness of that reply. Again, I’m 

happy to immediately go back and try to get clarification from the 

folks within Interior and reach out to your office and have a conversation about it. 

Senator FLAKE. I would appreciate that certainly. When you do, 

please, if there is any justification for providing the funding in 

32 

1995 and not providing the funding now, we’d like to know what 

that is. Why you feel it’s appropriate to keep the windfall this time, 

shutdown windfall, and not last time. 

That’s what we’re concerned about. 

So, anyway, look forward to hearing from you on that. Just want 

to say that, yeah, it’s been over a month and we’ve not heard a 

thing back. 

Ms. SUH. Yes, sir. 

Senator FLAKE. So we do need to consult on this or if we need 

to find out what action has been taken. 

Ms. SUH. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

Ms. Suh, I have just probably a couple more quick questions for 

you and then I believe we’ve got yet another vote coming up at 11. 

This relates to a policy issue that for us in Alaska is pretty important, some would say all consuming and that’s the issue of ANWR. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s draft conservation plan and EIS 

for ANWR did not include a development alternative for oil and gas 

in the coastal plain. The Department stated in testimony previously that the reason they did this was because that development 

requires an act of Congress. But the draft plan included alternatives for additional wilderness and wild and scenic rivers. Those 

require an act of Congress. 

So on the one hand they’re saying well, we can’t do an alternate 

plan for development because that would require an act of Congress. 

Yet they also turn around and say, well, wilderness, scenic rivers, which requires an act of Congress is OK. We’re going to put 

this in the plan. 

I think it’s very inconsistent, highly inconsistent. 

So the general, broader question to you is whether or not you believe the 1002 area of the coastal plain which was set aside for oil 

and gas development in ANWR, as part of this compromise reaching under ANILCA, whether or not you believe that it should be 

developed? 

Ms. SUH. Senator Murkowski, the President has made it clear 

that he does not believe that development in the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge is warranted at this time. The Secretary of Interior, Sally Jewell, agrees with the President. I agree with both the 

Secretary and the President. 

That is not to say that the balance of energy needs and the energy opportunities in the North Slope of Alaska are unimportant to 

this Administration or to the Department of Interior. Again, in the 

all of the above energy strategy, I think we are working very 

concertedly and I know that you’ve been working very closely with 

my colleague, Mr. Beaudreau, on opportunities to expand the opportunity for responsible energy development in both onshore and 

offshore in Alaska. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I didn’t really anticipate that you were 

going to tell me that you supported development in ANWR. It 

would have been a great surprise this morning. But that was not 

what I expected. 

33 

But you have mentioned in your response to me previously that 

you look forward to understanding and learning more about the 

Federal laws that have such impact on us in Alaska, ANCSA and 

ANILCA. 

ANILCA specifically, specifically, provides that there will be no 

more wilderness designations within the State of Alaska. How do 

you reconcile this proposal then coming out of Fish and Wildlife for 

additional wilderness and wild and scenic rivers when ANILCA has 

specifically stated no more? 

When those designations were made several decades ago it was 

recognized that the amount of wilderness that we have in Alaska, 

which is more than the entire wilderness in the rest of the country, 

that basically Alaska had contributed. Yet, this Administration is 

continuing to push on this in direct violation and contradiction to 

what ANILCA spells out. 

How do you reconcile the terms of ANILCA with this latest effort 

coming out of Fish and Wildlife? 

Ms. SUH. Thank you, Senator. 

First, again thank you for forwarding this speech that you gave 

on Alaska Day in 2011 and the background that that provided of 

the kind of origins of intents of primarily ANILCA were quite helpful to me. 

My understanding is that the Fish and Wildlife Service has a variety of different alternatives. There is not a preferred alternative. 

I recognize your concern associated with wilderness, but I also recognize that wilderness, wherever it’s designated is an act of Congress and will require an act of Congress. To that we are ultimately and always deferential to this body. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you expect or do you know when the 

final plan is expected to be released? 

Ms. SUH. I am not aware of the timeframe. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. One of the real concerns from folks back 

home is that despite the statements coming from the Administration that local residents should be involved in the land management decisions. Secretary Jewell has articulated this as well. But 

it seems that that only happens to favor conservation, unfortunately, not production. 

In Alaska there’s a clear, clear majority of folks including every 

State wide elected official, both Republican and Democrat, that 

strongly support responsible oil and gas administration. The concern back home is that the Administration is going to unilaterally 

act on ANWR. 

Would you support such unilateral action without, again, the involvement of the people that live and work and raise their families 

there? 

Ms. SUH. Again, I believe every public process that we have 

around important policy decisions requires and demands the need 

for strong public engagement, particularly for engagement of the 

local communities and local stakeholders. 

As I stated earlier I don’t believe the Department has the authority to unilaterally decide anything on wilderness. That is an authority that, again, rests within this body that we will ultimately 

and always be deferential to. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

34 

Let me ask one last question and then I’ll let you all go. You’ve 

been very patient this morning. 

I raised this briefly, but this, again, is an important issue in the 

State of Alaska. Some might say it is so extraordinarily parochial 

we can’t believe we spend so much time talking about the Izembek 

road, a ten mile, one lane, gravel road that would be used for noncommercial purposes to connect the small community of King Cove 

with the State’s second longest runway there at Cold Bay. 

I have taken the position that as significant as that refuge area 

is and I appreciate the bird populations that move through, but 

that we should be working every day to give equal protection to the 

residents, who live in this small, Alaska, Aleut village provide 

them access to life saving healthcare which is only available if you 

can get out of the village to an airport that can take you to Anchorage or to other medical facilities. 

So I have been trying to work this initiative. Secretary Jewell 

has been out to King Cove. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Mr. Washburn, has been out. 

What I would ask from you is that if you are confirmed, your 

commitment to work for a suitable solution that will ensure the 

protection of the residents of King Cove that, as important as wildlife is, that we not ignore the health and safety needs of the local 

residents who are out there. 

Ms. SUH. Senator, as you know, Secretary Jewell had an opportunity to visit the community. Secretary Washburn is completing 

or has recently completed his report to her on the situation. 

I recognize that this is Secretary Jewell’s ultimate decision, but 

I absolutely commit to you that I will be looking at the critical 

issues, the issues of safety, health associated with whatever decisions we might make in the future, but certainly with the decision 

that the Secretary is going to be making associated with Izembek. 

So you do have my commitment. I am very interested in engaging 

with you further on this issue. 

Senator MURKOWSKI.I appreciate that. 

I think it should be noted that certainly within Alaska and many 

who are looking at this issue back here, there appears to be, again, 

an inconsistency with the position that the Fish and Wildlife Service has taken with regards to its ongoing opposition to the King 

Cove road. 

Yet, just the recent decision to grant permits to that will allow 

for the taking of eagles at wind farms around the country. People 

are looking at that and saying well, wait a minute. It’s going to be 

OK given that permits can be issued, that our national bird would 

be killed and yet, we’ve got a situation where human lives are at 

risk and we’re saying we cannot provide for a road because we need 

to protect the migratory water fowl. 

It seems to me you’re talking about balance. I think we need to 

work to try to find that balance here. Your assistance in that would 

be appreciated. 

I have many questions for the record that I will submit to all of 

you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I know that I can speak, probably speak, 

hopefully speak for the chairman on this, that others on the committee will as well given that most were not able to attend and 

35 

based on the conversations I’ve had with others. I know that they 

were all very interested in your nominations and the perspectives 

that you hold. So I think you can expect additional questions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But I appreciate the time that you have 

given us and again, your willingness to serve. 

With that we’ll stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF JONATHAN ELKIND TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1a. China.—As many predicted, China has become the world’s largest 

importer of crude, a role the U.S. used to hold. The U.S. has a long history of working with our partners internationally in times of crisis to ensure an adequate supply 

of energy for our allies. 

I know China also maintains strategic petroleum reserves, but are we considering 

discussions or entering into cooperative efforts with them to ensure a stable energy 

market in the future? 

Answer. Over the last few years, DOE has actively engaged the Chinese National 

Energy Administration, both bilaterally and multilaterally, on issues related to reserves. DOE is currently negotiating a cooperative agreement with China on issues 

related to the Chinese Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to allow us to better 

understand the country’s planning and policies related to reserve management. If 

confirmed, I will work to conclude these negotiations expeditiously, the outcome of 

which will support U.S. energy security goals through sharing best practices and encouraging China to increase transparency and improve the quality of its oil data. 

Question 1b. Keeping this in mind, can you elaborate further on what efforts if 

any the Administration is pursing in terms of addressing possible future international supply shortages? 

Answer. DOE is engaged with a wide range of producer and consumer countries 

on planning and policies for supply disruption and shortages. Promoting international cooperation on data transparency, policy reform and technology innovation 

with countries such as China is critical to addressing potential future energy shortages. Better understanding supplies and reserves, and how they are managed allows 

for early warning of potential problems, better informed policies and more effective 

coordination to address disruptions and shortages as they arise. 

Question 2. Strategic influence.—Domestic consumption is dropping and production is increasing. While this is a positive development-specifically the U.S. being 

less reliant on politically tumultuous states for energy-it could also result in a shift 

of the U.S.’ strategic influence overseas. I believe the U.S. needs to begin contemplating what comes after energy independence, and how we can change roles internationally but maintain our influence abroad. 

In your opinion how should U.S. energy policy evolve with the U.S. transition 

from highly dependent on imported oil to becoming a global energy player? 

Answer. Even as U.S. energy imports decline, the U.S. market will remain integrated with international energy markets. I believe our energy policies should be designed to enhance U.S. energy security by advocating for transparent international 

energy markets and being prepared to respond to domestic and international energy 

supply disruptions with actions that mitigate the adverse affects of those disruptions on U.S. consumers. Our policies should also focus on maintaining U.S. technological leadership in energy, both domestically and internationally, and reducing 

global emissions of greenhouse gases. 

RESPONSES OF JONATHAN ELKIND TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. As part of your Opportunity08 project for the Brookings Institution, 

you wrote that, ‘‘Without doubt, the United States needs higher energy prices.’’ 

a. Do you continue to hold that view? 

38 

b. In your opinion, how high should energy prices be? What should be the average 

national price for electricity and gasoline, as compared to where we are today? 

Answer. The mission of the Department of Energy is to drive down the costs of 

energy technologies and to facilitate the smooth functioning of energy markets 

through effective policy. This has been my focus through my tenure at DOE, and 

it would continue to be my focus if I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary for International Affairs. We need to keep prices for energy services as low as possible while 

still maintaining a reliable, robust and clean energy system; to do otherwise would 

inflict serious impacts on families. 

Question 2. As part of your Opportunity08 project for the Brookings Institution, 

you noted that ‘‘worldwide, 1.6 billion people still lack energy services in their 

homes.’’ That’s an astounding number and a reminder not only that energy is fundamentally good, but also that we are blessed to have it in relative abundance. 

a. If you are confirmed as Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, how would 

you advise Secretary Moniz to seek to increase energy access around the world? 

b. Would you advise the Secretary to seek to deny those living in energy poverty 

access to fossil fuels, whether through international financial institutions or greater 

energy exports from the U.S.? 

c. Will you work with this Committee to identify sensible policies, such as greater 

energy exports, that would help improve energy access throughout the world? 

Answer. If I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, I will 

advise Secretary Moniz to work on energy access issues by seeking to work with key 

international partners on the policies, technologies, and business models that can 

help to alleviate this important challenge. If I am confirmed, I would certainly be 

prepared to work with the Committee to identify policies that improve energy access 

throughout the world. 

We know that people will use whatever fuels and whatever technologies they feel 

to be most advantageous, and that those energy resources will be largely made up 

of what is geographically available. If I am confirmed, I will advise Secretary Moniz 

to work with our international partners to increase knowledge and encourage host 

countries to create the right policy environments, to focus on renewables-based systems, efficient fossil-fuel-based systems, fossil-renewables hybrid systems, or others. 

The Administration does not support denying energy access to anyone—least of 

all the poor. Recognizing the very real and increasing threat of climate change, the 

Administration does not intend to use taxpayer funds to finance conventional coal 

plants that lack carbon capture, although exceptions may be made in some cases 

for the poorest countries. As an alternative, and in order to promote global access 

to energy services, we are supporting programs and projects using a variety of clean 

energy options. 

Question 3. How do you believe the United States can better engage on energy 

policy with the rest of the world? What does that mean to you, with regard to specific policies that should be pursued? What would be your top priorities if you are 

confirmed to this position? 

Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, I will focus 

efforts on several Secretarial and Administration priorities, such as multilateral forums like the Africa Energy Ministerial and the Clean Energy Ministerial, as well 

as critical bilateral efforts like those with China, which would include oil market 

transparency, promote jobs in the export of technologies and energy, dialogue on oil 

market disruptions, buildings efficiency, and clean coal to name a few areas. 

Question 4. Please describe how you view the relationship between the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of State, in 

terms of international activities related to energy development. Do any official documents, such as memoranda of understanding, govern this relationship? 

Answer. The Departments of Energy, Interior, and State all bring different capabilities to the table in connection with international energy issues. The Department’s obligation is to identify the most effective ways to collaborate, under the coordination of the National Security Council structure, in order to secure maximum 

benefit for the American taxpayer from our varied institutional strengths. DOE’s 

strengths lie in the areas of energy policies, energy technologies, and energy markets. DOI plays distinct, vital roles in connection with energy regulation, offshore 

development, and related issues. The State Department is, of course, the political 

representative of the U.S. Government, and it has permanent presence through its 

diplomatic missions all around the world. At present, there are no formal, overarching agreements that govern these relationships as far as I am aware. Instead, 

interagency coordination is managed through the National Security Council process. 

39 

Question 5. Can you commit to working with me and this Committee to improve 

interagency coordination between DOE, State, Commerce, and other relevant federal 

entities on the overseas energy-related work that American taxpayers support? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, I would be happy to work closely with you and other 

members of the Committee to help ensure good interagency coordination. 

Question 6. Other DOE programs outside the Office of International Affairs have 

internal sections, offices, or task forces that deal with international implications 

specific to their work and missions. Do you think there is some duplication of activities across the Department that needs to be addresses and better managed? 

Answer. Certain DOE program elements do focus on international aspects of their 

work. This enables the Department to tailor its engagement with foreign partners 

by ensuring a high degree of knowledge about individual technology groups. 

Through internal coordination mechanisms, we work to ensure that this does not 

result in duplication. 

Question 7. As part of your Opportunity08 project for the Brookings Institution, 

you advocated for the next President to set a ‘‘goal of an annual increase of 2.5 percent in energy efficiency.’’ 

a. How does this compare to efficiency gains made in the years since 2008? 

Answer. The Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014 

(Early Release) shows that the energy intensity of the U.S. economy (energy use per 

dollar of GDP) has decreased by 1.5 percent per year between 2008 and 2013. The 

rate of decrease goes up to around 2 percent per year in projections for subsequent 

years as a result of new appliance and CAFE standards: ‘‘U.S. energy use per capita 

was fairly constant from 1990 to 2007 but began to fall after 2007. In the AEO2014 

Reference case, energy use per capita continues to decline as a result of improvements in energy efficiency (e.g., new appliance and CAFE standards) and changes 

in the ways energy is used in the U.S. economy.’’ (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ 

er/earlylintensity.cfm) 

b. How do you believe our current federal energy efficiency policies could be improved? 

Answer. The President has outlined his strategy for improving energy efficiency 

policies in the Climate Action Plan, with the goal of doubling energy productivity 

by 2030 relative to 2010 levels. In particular, the Department of Energy is focused 

on moving more quickly on appliance standards, as well as expanding our efforts 

on the Better Buildings Challenge, with the goal of helping residential and commercial buildings be 20 percent more efficient by 2020. These actions, coupled with the 

historic increase of fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles, represent a dramatic improvement in Federal efficiency policies. 

Question 8. To what extent, if any, has the Department of Energy’s International 

Affairs office been involved in the formulation of the President’s forthcoming National Security Strategy? 

Answer. The Department of Energy’s Office of International Affairs has supported 

the participation of senior DOE leadership in the formulation of the forthcoming National Security Strategy. 

RESPONSES OF JONATHAN ELKIND TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. In Opportunity 08, you wrote that: ‘‘Without doubt, the United States 

needs higher energy prices’’ (emphasis in the original). Please explain why those of 

us who support lower energy prices should vote in favor of your nomination. 

Answer. The mission of the Department of Energy is to drive down the costs of 

energy technologies and to facilitate the smooth functioning of energy markets 

through effective policy. This has been my focus through my tenure since 2009 at 

DOE, and it would continue to be my focus if I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary 

for International Affairs. It is clear that higher energy prices inflict serious impacts 

on families. 

Question 2. In Opportunity 08, you listed a number of ‘‘[p]otential [t]hreats’’ to our 

nation’s energy security. Among these threats, you included ‘‘support for increased 

use of coal before carbon capture and storage are commercialized.’’ 

A. Has carbon capture and storage been commercialized? 

Answer. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has been and continues to 

be deployed on a range of projects, and have demonstrated the viability of CCS technology. World-wide, twelve large-scale CCS projects are operating. In the US, one 

large-scale project is operating and seven more are on track to enter commercial operation by 2018. These include a mix of projects, including fully integrated power 

and industrial applications; pre, post, and oxy-combustion efforts, and both enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and deep saline formation storage. Some projects that use 

available carbon capture technology have been operational for years, and these have 

40 

direct applicability to the power sector. If confirmed, I plan to be involved in DOE’s 

continuous work to advance CCS and other important technologies in this area. 

Question 2B. If so, do you support the increased use of coal, including but not limited to coal-to-liquids technology? 

Answer. Coal is a part of the President’s domestic ‘‘All of the Above’’ strategy, and 

can be part of a future where its effects on the environment are minimal. For coal, 

CCS is a critical part of the achieving those environmental benefits in any application, in the U.S. or abroad. DOE’s goal is to continue to enhance the technology so 

that coal continues to have a competitive role in a future domestic energy mix. 

Question 3. In Opportunity 08, you listed coal-to-liquids technology with carbon 

capture as an energy option with ‘‘[n]egative climate characteristics.’’ Please explain 

why you believe this to be the case. 

Answer. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my Opportunity 08 essay. I do believe that coal-to-liquids technologies with CCS can result in lower greenhouse gas 

emissions. According to life-cycle analyses and commercial operations conducted to 

date, coal-to-liquids with CCS can have positive climate characteristics if a zeroemission energy source powers the plant’s entire operation. Under such circumstances, coal-to-liquids fuels could contribute to greenhouse gas emission reduction over gasoline or diesel in the transportation sector. 

Question 4. You have written extensively on the dependency that eastern European countries, such as Ukraine, have on natural gas from Russia. 

A. Do you believe exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States 

would help eastern European countries reduce their dependency on natural gas from 

Russia? If so, how? 

Answer. Eastern European countries can reduce their energy dependency through 

strategies that focus on both the diversification of energy supply as well as the reduction of energy demand. These countries can diversify supply by exploring domestic resources, renewable energy potential, and new import opportunities including 

liquefied natural gas (LNG). Infrastructure interconnections can also help them to 

manage crises and have diversification options. These countries can reduce energy 

demand by pursuing significant energy efficiency opportunities in buildings, the industrial sector, and the public sector. 

Question 4B. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to convey the importance of U.S. LNG exports to the energy security of our allies and our own national 

interests to Secretary Moniz, the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy, 

and other relevant policy makers within the Department of Energy and the Administration? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary, the Office of Fossil Energy, 

and all other relevant decision makers in Department and elsewhere across the Administration to stress the importance of global energy security and our own national 

interests. The Department can work with our allies to develop strategies to diversify 

energy supply by exploring their domestic resources, renewable energy potential, 

and new import opportunities including liquefied natural gas (LNG). At the same 

time, the Department can work with these countries on strategies to reduce energy 

demand through increased energy efficiency. 

Question 5. Do you support exporting coal from the United States? 

Answer. For the past ten years, the United States has exported between 5 percent 

and 10 percent of its coal production; our 2013 levels are at their highest share 

since the mid-1990s. While we must be cognizant of the implications of substantial 

increases in our coal exports, in terms of global environmental consequences to climate change as well as to domestic coal prices and local environmental concerns, 

any changes would need to be taken as a result of careful consideration of all the 

costs and benefits, including to jobs, economic welfare, energy security and the environment. 

Question 6. Do you support the Department of Treasury’s Guidance for U.S. Positions on [Multilateral Development Banks] Engaging with Developing Countries on 

Coal-Fired Power Generation issued on October 29, 2013? 

Answer. Yes. This guidance was developed in an interagency process and has concurrence throughout the Administration. 

Question 7. Do you agree with the Export-Import Bank’s new policy to significantly limit financing for coal-fired power plants? 

Answer. Yes. While there are some exceptions (in particular for the least-developed countries with no other options), the Administration has taken a position that 

it does not make sense to provide financial support to build coal-fired power plants 

without carbon capture and storage given their impact on the global climate—and 

hence their impact in the U.S. 

Question 8. Do you believe coal provides a low-cost and reliable energy source to 

countries looking for assistance in poverty alleviation and economic development? 

41 

Answer. The federal government is committed to working with the poorest countries to build a sustainable, robust and accessible energy system in support of economic growth and poverty alleviation. We do not, as a rule, believe that coal will 

necessarily provide that service at least cost—particularly when taking into account 

the climate damages that accrue from coal use without carbon capture and storage. 

We believe that in most cases, alternatives exist that can meet the same needs. 

However, the Administration has made an exception to its policy so that in cases 

of certain least-developed countries, we can deploy coal, and in these cases we propose to consider the most efficient technology available in coal fired power plants. 

Question 9. How much funding did the Office of Policy and International Affairs 

receive in fiscal year 2013? 

Answer. The Office of Policy & International Affairs received $25,991,000 in funding for fiscal year 2013. 

Question 10. What is the number of staff positions at the Office of Policy and 

International Affairs? Did the number of staff positions increase from fiscal year 

2012 and 2013? 

Answer. The number of staff positions from FY12 to FY13 decreased. In FY15, 

as a result of reorganization, the Office of Policy & International will be split into 

two entities: the Office of International Affairs and the Energy Policy & Systems 

Analysis Office. If confirmed, I will head the former with a current number of 74 

staff positions. 

Question 11. Are you committed to ending duplication and to preventing 

redundancies in the U.S. government? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 12. What measures and practices are in place at the Office of Policy and 

International Affairs to avoid duplicating efforts of other parts of the government? 

Answer. The Office of International Affairs coordinates with interagency partners 

through the National Security Council’s policy process and directly with the State 

Department and other U.S. Government stakeholders on relevant issues and initiatives to avoid duplicating efforts. 

Question 13. How is the Department of State’s Bureau of Energy Resources different from the Department of Energy’s Office of Policy and International Affairs? 

Please outline the different roles and lines of authority between the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Policy and International Affairs and the new Bureau of 

Energy Resources at the U.S. Department of State. 

Answer. The Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for International Affairs 

(IA) is the primary policy advisor to the Secretary of Energy on international policy 

analysis, development, evaluation, and implementation. IA represents the Department and the U.S. Government in interagency processes, intergovernmental forums, 

and bilateral and multilateral proceedings that address matters relating to the development and implementation of international energy policies, strategies and objectives. 

IA has primary responsibility for coordinating the efforts of diverse elements in 

the Department to ensure a unified voice in DOE’s international affairs. IA’s chief 

strengths lie in the areas of energy policies, energy technologies, and energy markets. IA represents the Department and the Secretary in all international engagements. The State Department is the political representative of the U.S. Government 

overseas and it has a permanent presence through its diplomatic missions all 

around the world; the Bureau of Energy Resources is the State Department’s main 

energy unit and consolidated any of the energy capabilities that long existed in different parts of that department before the Bureau’s formation. 

Question 14. As Assistant Secretary, what major international energy projects 

would be your primary focus? 

Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, I will focus 

efforts on several Secretarial and Administration priorities, such as multilateral forums like the Africa Energy Ministerial and the Clean Energy Ministerial, as well 

as critical bilateral efforts like those with China, which would include oil market 

transparency, promote jobs in the export of technologies and energy, dialogue on oil 

market disruptions, buildings efficiency, and clean coal to name a few areas. 

Question 15. What work is being done by the Office of Policy and International 

Affairs on Iran’s energy sector and the implementation of sanctions on Iran? 

Answer. The Office of International Affairs plays a key role in the Administration’s interagency efforts to pursue a dual track policy with Iran to persuade the 

government of Iran to abide by its international obligations with respect to its nuclear program. The Office of International Affairs monitors and analyzes the effects 

of economic sanctions on Iran’s energy sector, in particular, and international energy markets, in general. 

42 

RESPONSE OF FRANKLIN M. ORR TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Methane leakage. One of the key aspects of making sure natural gas 

development is a climate benefit is that there aren’t methane leaks throughout the 

production, gathering, transport, and delivery of natural gas to consumers. The goal 

that I’ve been saying we should be pushing for is less than 1 percent leakage from 

the well to the consumer. The President mentioned methane leakage as an important concern when he announced his climate action plan, but I’ve seen no real activity out of the Administration on it since. What is your level of concern over methane 

leakage, and what do you view the role of DOE to be with regards to addressing 

methane leakage? 

Answer. I agree that methane leakage is an important issue, one in which I am 

personally interested based on work done in my own research and that of colleagues 

at Stanford and elsewhere. While I am not intimately familiar with what the Department is doing in this area, I am aware that the Department is engaged in an 

interagency effort to comprehensively look at the research on hydraulic fracturing 

and I have been told DOE is working with other agencies to reduce methane leakage. If confirmed I will review DOE activities in this area, and I will work to support those efforts, including involving methane leakage. 

RESPONSES OF FRANKLIN M. ORR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

At least two recent reports have called for the reform of the Department of Energy, or parts of it. One report was by the Clean Air Task Force, and the other is 

an effort from the Heritage Foundation, ITIF, and the Center for American 

Progress. 

Question 1a. Do you believe any of the recommendations within those reports 

have merit? 

Answer. I am aware of these reports. I understand that Secretary Moniz is committed to improving performance and management at the Department, and I know 

he is very supportive of the national laboratories. I share that support, and I believe 

the national laboratories are truly a national treasure. 

I understand that the Department is in the process of constituting the National 

Laboratory Operations Board and the National Laboratory Policy Council to look at 

lab issues, including those raised in various reports. If confirmed, I plan to work 

with the Secretary and my counterparts across the Department on these important 

issues. I look forward to working with you and your fellow Committee Members, on 

this and other issues regarding the Department and our national labs. 

Question 1b. Do you believe that the Department of Energy—and particularly its 

research functions—are in need of structural reform? 

Answer. As a professor and a scientist, I believe it is important that we continue 

to look at new ways to innovate as well as continue with basic and applied programs. It is important to review ongoing programs, and it is also important to evaluate new efforts. And I know from my university experience that there are many benefits to linking research across disciplines in a way that produces creative solutions 

to challenging problems. Toward that end it is my understanding that Secretary 

Moniz recently charged his federal advisory committee, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, to study multiple new approaches to R&D that the Department has 

undertaken over the past several years. Secretary Moniz has created the National 

Laboratory Operations Board and the National Laboratory Policy Council to provide 

additional scrutiny on an ongoing basis. 

Question 2. What have you learned at Stanford that you believe the federal government could or should do better to help spur innovation? 

Answer. The most important elements of Stanford’s success in innovation are hiring first-rate researchers, encouraging them to pursue a creative path that they determine, expecting them to compete successfully for funding based on their creativity, and rewarding them (with recognition, promotion, tenure, and a share of 

patent income, for example) when they are successful. One important element of 

promotion and tenure deliberations is whether a faculty member’s research changes 

the way the world thinks about a certain problem. Creating innovations that make 

their way into the marketplace is one way to demonstrate that. 

Stanford has an effective Office of Technology Licensing that handles the process 

for faculty to pursue patents and for entities outside Stanford to license Stanford 

patents. If a patent produces income it is shared among the university, the faculty 

member, and the department of the faculty member. Stanford has surely benefited 

from the Silicon Valley culture of investing in new ideas, so there is an audience 

for innovation that occurs on campus. Stanford is also experimenting now with a 

modest program of support to bridge at least part of the gap between demonstrating 

43 

a technology in the lab and passing it to a commercial entity to develop and market 

the technology. 

If confirmed, I will look for opportunities to take what I have learned during my 

tenure at Stanford to determine what may fit within the Federal government framework. This will require careful analysis of incentives and barriers that exist now to 

develop pathways to encourage innovation going forward. If confirmed I look forward to exploring this area further. 

Question 3. Some of the new responsibilities of the Undersecretary for Science 

now include oversight over all of the Department’s energy offices, such as the Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy, and the Office of Nuclear Energy. a. If confirmed, you would also be overseeing 13 of DOE’s 

national labs now that energy is part of the Undersecretary for Science’s portfolio. 

Many have recently been calling for reforming and revitalizing our national labs to 

better align with the needs of the DOE and our nation. Given this expanded portfolio of the Undersecretary’s office, how would you view the future of the national 

labs and their work in supporting DOE’s basic and applied research missions? 

Answer. I strongly support our national labs and believe that the underlying 

structure is a great benefit to our nation. The national labs are critical to the basic 

and applied work of the Department, but also to newer efforts such as innovation 

hubs and other targeted research efforts. If confirmed, I look forward to working 

with the National Laboratory Policy Council, the National Laboratory Operations 

Board, the National Lab Directors Council and my counterparts across the Department to engage on how the national labs and DOE can continue to improve outcomes that better our country. 

Question 3b. Would you say that there are existing duplicative research and development efforts across the DOE science and energy offices? If so, what do you think 

needs to be done to minimize these? 

Answer. I appreciate your comments on making sure we are spending our taxpayer dollars wisely, particularly in this era of fiscal constraint. It is my understanding that programs throughout the Department address the multiple stages of 

research, development and deployment across integrated topics. If confirmed, I will 

work to ensure that those efforts are coordinated. 

Question 4. Do you believe that nuclear power should and could have a prominent 

role as baseload power generation that also supports future drastic reduction in 

Green House Gas emissions and overall clean energy production? 

Answer. Yes, I believe in an all-of-the-above approach to energy, which includes 

nuclear power generation. Baseload power generation with low greenhouse gas 

emissions is an essential element of a diversified portfolio of energy supply to the 

nation. 

Question 5. How do you view the role of government in the support of design, licensing and potential deployment (for domestic and international) of small modular 

nuclear reactors, and what future market opportunities do you see for this type of 

power plants? 

Answer. I’m familiar with the SMR concept and understand that the Department 

has already awarded two grants under its SMR program. I agree with Secretary 

Moniz that this is a promising direction that we need to pursue, and if confirmed 

I look forward to learning more about this important program. 

Question 6. In your opinion, is carbon capture and storage (CCS) currently commercially available for power plant applications? Please explain. 

Answer. CCS technology has been and continues to be deployed on a range of 

projects. A number of full-scale, conventional coal-fired projects that will use CCS 

are moving forward today. IGCC projects using CCS are also moving forward, and 

projects that use available carbon capture technology have been operational for 

years, and these projects have direct applicability to the power sector. In my own 

research career over the last thirty-eight years, my students and I have developed 

a detailed understanding of how carbon dioxide flows in geologic settings associated 

with large-scale enhanced oil recovery projects. And there is considerable experience 

in the processes for separating carbon dioxide from other gases in refining, gas processing, and fertilizer manufacturing. If confirmed, I plan to be involved in DOE’s 

continuing work to advance CCS and other important technologies in this area. 

Question 7. At one of our recent nominations hearings, the President’s nominee 

to head the Office of Fossil Energy, Mr. Chris Smith, noted that ‘‘there are 12 largescale CCS projects in operation worldwide today.’’ For each of the 12 projects, please 

identify the project location, project type/purpose (e.g., power plant or industrial), 

the project’s initial operation date, and its estimated costs. 

Answer. There are currently 12 large scale CCS projects in operation world-wide 

today, 7 of them are in the United States. Please note that due to the multiple factors included in determining estimated cost, it is difficult to provide meaningful cost 

44 

numbers across these projects. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing these 

projects with you or your staff. 

Question 8. At what stage of development (e.g., demonstration) are the CCS 

projects being financed by the Office of Fossil Energy? 

Answer. There are currently eight major carbon capture and storage demonstrations being supported through the Office of Fossil Energy’s (FE) Clean Coal Power 

Initiative (CCPI), Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Initiative (ICCS) and 

FutureGen Programs. These projects represent an investment of over $3 billion US 

dollars from the Federal side, leveraging roughly $13 billion from industry, for a 

total investment of approximately $16 billion dollars. Each of these projects is at 

a different stage of development listed below: 


orr1.eps
45 

Question 9. Do you believe CCS has been adequately proven at commercial scale 

or at a level required for baseload generating capacity? 

Answer. From my own experience, I can tell you that all components of CCS, including large-scale CO2 capture, transportation, and multi-million ton per year injection, have been demonstrated world-wide and in the U.S. for many years, and 

some are in the commercial phase. I also understand that there are twelve largescale CCS projects currently in operation worldwide today. If confirmed at DOE, 

part of my mission will be to continue to pursue research to drive down the cost 

of CCS technology. 

Question 10. What do you see as the major constraints preventing the commercial 

adoption of CCS (e.g, technological, financial, regulatory)? What do you believe is 

necessary to overcome those restraints? 

Answer. The 2010 Interagency Task Force Report on Carbon Capture and Storage 

(CCS) identified certain policy, legal, regulatory, and technical barriers to CCS deployment. Notably, however, while the Task Force Report stated that early projects 

face certain challenges, it also stated, ‘‘there are no insurmountable technological, 

legal, institutional, regulatory or other barriers that prevent CCS from playing a 

role in reducing GHG emissions.’’ The report identifies specific constraints such as 

lack of a clear market signal, pore space ownership, long-term liabilities, and cost 

relative to other technology options as barriers to commercial deployment of CCS. 

Since the release of the task force report, DOE is addressing the barriers by implementing its RD&D portfolio that is focused on a suite of first generation and secVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA

orr2.eps
46 

ond generation technologies to gain experience through early CCS demonstration 

projects and coupling this learning with advancements in R&D to further reduce 

costs and improve the technology. The large-scale demonstration projects are also 

helping to provide information and input on addressing the financial and regulatory 

barriers associated with commercial deployment. In general, existing Federal, State, 

and local regulatory programs will apply equally to CCS-equipped plants as they 

would to plants without CCS. However, there will be additional requirements because of the need to select an appropriate geological reservoir for CO2 storage and 

the need to obtain proper permits for constructing the offsite CO2 pipeline and CO2 

injection wells for the new CCS-equipped plant. 

While challenges remain, and the legal and regulatory issues vary from site to 

site depending upon State and local law, the advancements being made in development and demonstration of CCS technologies are driving legal and regulatory measures that will ensure wider-scale deployment in future years. 

RESPONSE OF FRANKLIN M. ORR TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

Question 1. Dr. Orr, as director of the Precourt Institute at Stanford University, 

you have demonstrated an ability to draw together experts across a wide range of 

disciplines in an effort to craft integrated science and technology solutions to complex societal problems, among them climate change. I think you and I are in agreement with the President and Secretary Moniz, that climate change is one of the defining challenges of this century, and one that must be addressed urgently. I also 

know from my conversations with researchers at the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory in my home state of Washington that DOE’s national laboratories have 

a lot of depth of expertise and capabilities across the science and engineering disciplines that could be very powerful in addressing climate change, particularly if 

they were brought to bear on the problem in an integrated, coordinated way. As 

Under Secretary for Science and Energy, how would you go about integrating the 

Department’s basic climate science research programs with the resources of DOE’s 

applied program offices to address climate change? What is your vision for climate 

science under DOE’s new organization? 

Answer. Secretary Moniz’s reorganization brings the Department’s basic research 

and applied energy programs under one Under Secretary, creating opportunities for 

improved coordination of the Department’s efforts to address climate change and 

achieve the goals of the President’s Climate Action Plan. If confirmed, I plan to look 

closely at this issue and ensure DOE is taking full advantage of the new organizational structure and resources, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

RESPONSES OF FRANKLIN M. ORR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BALDWIN

UW Madison is the proud home of one of the three Bioenergy Research Centers 

run by the DOE, the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center. I had the opportunity 

to tour the research labs earlier this year and saw firsthand how this innovative 

research model is accelerating the transition between basic research and technologies that can be transferred into the private sector. 

Question 1a. What impacts do you see the Bioenergy Research Centers having in 

developing the next generation of advanced biofuels? 

Answer. While I am not intimately familiar with the Bioenergy Research Centers, 

I understand that they have been very successful, as evidenced by their recent review and renewal for another 5 years, subject to appropriations. It is my understanding the Centers have carved out a complementary set of research areas in 

order to tackle the scientific challenges of producing advanced biofuels. If confirmed, 

I look forward to learning more about the Centers and how we can continue to enable their success. 

Question 1b. One of the exciting parts of playing host to the Great Lakes BRC 

is seeing research collaboration across many disciplines. Can you discuss the importance of the Bioenergy Research Center model, which helps break down research 

silos to accelerate innovation? 

Answer. I agree that collaboration across disciplines is critical to accelerating innovation. These Centers seem in many ways to be precursors to the Energy Innovations Hubs. My understanding is that the goals of both are to assemble diverse and 

collaborative teams of scientists from many disciplines to tackle a single grand challenge. I believe scientists are drawn to these complex challenges and enjoy working 

together toward a common, well-understood, goal that is related to clean energy. If 

confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the Great Lakes BRC. 

Question 2. I’ve heard of foreign universities offering attractive research positions 

to US scientists, pulling them away from critical research projects we have invested 

in and poaching the talent we have developed. This fall I introduced the Next GenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA
47 

eration Research Act to jumpstart investments in the next generation of biomedical 

researchers. 

a) Are you concerned about our ability to attract and retain the next generation 

of researchers who will tackle one of the most pressing issues of our time-energy 

research? 

Answer. Yes, I am concerned about the future of our scientific workforce. It is extremely important that we find ways to attract talented scientists and engineers 

into energy research. Workforce issues in science, energy and especially the biomedical field are challenging, and I understand how important it is that we find 

ways improve how we attract and train the next generation of scientists. 

Question 2b. How will you work to ensure DOE addresses this potential innovation deficit so that we continue to host the best and the brightest researchers in 

US labs? 

Answer. One way to bring talent to our labs is to expose students and young researchers to our labs early in their career, for example through opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students to do research at the DOE national labs. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the needs of the DOE workforce, existing workforce programs, and to working to find ways to attracting the best scientists 

into our mission. 

RESPONSES OF RHEA SUH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Maintenance backlog.—As you are aware, the National Park Service’s 

deferred maintenance backlog is estimated to be over $11 billion. The backlog issue 

has become a major issue raised in opposition to almost any new park-related legislation. 

Do you have any fresh ideas for funding the maintenance backlog? 

Answer. This is one of the more significant issues facing the National Park Service and it is a difficult and longstanding issue that several Administrations have 

faced. In my role as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, I am 

aware that the facilities and roads in the parks are an essential part of meeting 

the mission of the National Park Service. In our constrained fiscal environment, we 

must find a way to embrace new opportunities to address this need. 

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has taken innovative steps to address the maintenance backlog, most recently by allocating additional funds to be 

leveraged with non-federal funds for this purpose. Taking a lesson from your work 

on the Helium legislation, we know that we cannot look solely to appropriations to 

address this challenge; we need to look to other funding models in the both the government and private sectors. Currently, the National Park Service is working on expanding public-private partnerships, and is developing a strategy to expand the potential universe of philanthropic interest and support, with maintenance as a key 

area for this effort. 

I believe that we also have the opportunity to expand innovative solutions like 

Energy Savings Performance Contracts across the country to be as efficient as we 

can be with the resources that we have, and focus them on the most critical facilities. Currently, we are developing a contract to assess energy use at sites in the 

National Park Service’s National Capital Region with potential for energy and water 

savings. I believe there is capacity to do more of these across the country. 

I also believe that the National Park Service must focus on key assets that are 

mission essential and key to operations. Evaluating each and every building, utility, 

and other facility in the system, and actively managing the facilities footprint, will 

allow us to eliminate unneeded facilities and those that have outlived their useful 

life. This will also help to reduce the backlog. 

Lastly, it is important to note that about one-half of the maintenance backlog is 

transportation related—about 49 percent of the infrastructure backlog needs in national parks are roads, bridges, and alternative transportation systems. These needs 

are broader than those currently funded by MAP-21, and a significant opportunity 

exists for addressing a portion of these needs with the Federal Lands Highways Administration. I look forward to working with you and other Members of the Committee to resolve this difficult issue, if confirmed. 

Question 2. Recreation fees.—The Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act provides fee authority for the National Park Service and other Federal land management agencies. The law was recently extended for an additional year, but the committee still needs to consider comprehensive fee legislation, including a longer-term 

authorization. 

In your opinion, has the fee law been successful, and what changes, if any, would 

you recommend be made when the law is reauthorized? 

48 

Answer. Yes, I believe the law has been successful. In 2012, there were almost 

500 million visits to lands and waters managed by the Department generating billions of dollars in economic benefits to local communities and hundreds of thousands 

of jobs. These visitors come to our national parks, public lands, and refuges to hike, 

camp, hunt and fish, bike, and enjoy other recreational activities. The Department 

currently collects over $200 million in recreation fees annually under this authority 

from sites that can charge fees and uses them to enhance the visitor experience 

through maintenance of recreation sites, educational experiences, interpretive programs, engaging youth, and leveraging other programs. Surveys have shown that 

most visitors to our lands believe that the fees they pay are reasonable for the services that are provided at these sites. 

Regarding changes to the law, the Department supports permanent authorization 

of this law. Our land managing bureaus with on-the-ground experience have identified areas where changes to the program could result in more effective service to 

recreation visitors and the public at large. These areas include possible expansion 

of the program beyond the current agencies, reviewing interagency pass benefits, 

and utilization of existing and new technologies to improve visitor services and 

agency operations. The recent one-year extension granted in the fiscal year 2014 

Continuing Resolution signed on October 16, 2013, has provided the additional time 

necessary to complete this task. If confirmed for this position, I look forward to continuing to work to assure the continued success of this program. 

RESPONSES OF RHEA SUH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 3. As I am sure you know, we have a nearly $13 billion parks maintenance backlog. The Land and Water Conservation Fund budget request is for a 

funding level of $600 million, which represents a nearly $300 million increase above 

the current level for DOI agencies and the Forest Service, and the Department has 

indicated its intention to request full funding of $900 million in the coming budget 

cycle. Most Americans wonder why the Federal Government is buying more land 

when it cannot afford to properly maintain and safeguard what it currently owns. 

This ongoing practice does not appear logical to me. 

a. Do you agree that we should address the maintenance backlog before we acquire additional lands? If not, can you please explain why, with such an enormous 

maintenance backlog, DOI would focus such a large amount of money on acquiring 

more federal land? 

b. More generally, how do you reconcile additional federal land acquisition, adding 

to the federal burden at this time of staggering national debt and maintenance 

backlogs? 

Answer. I understand and have seen first-hand the difficult challenges facing 

agencies that must maintain facilities and infrastructure in these constrained fiscal 

times. However, like President Obama and Secretary Jewell, I support the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, and do not believe that land acquisition is inconsistent 

with our maintenance responsibilities. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund was envisioned as a program that would 

use a portion of the proceeds from the development of our public lands and waters 

for investments in conservation and recreation for the benefit of all Americans. The 

Administration’s proposal would ensure continued funding for this program designed to balance investments in conservation and recreation with the development 

of oil and gas resources. Protecting this balance through mandatory LWCF funding 

would reduce landscape fragmentation, making it more efficient to protect wildlife 

habitat, respond to wildfires and other natural disasters, and increase recreational 

access on the lands and waters that belong to every American. This funding will 

also provide stability needed for agencies and states to make strategic, long-term 

investments in our natural infrastructure and outdoor economy to support jobs, preserve natural and cultural resources, bolster outdoor recreation opportunities, and 

protect wildlife. 

It is also important to note that more than half of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is comprised of grant programs for states and local partners and does not 

entail federal acquisition. For example, the State and Local Assistance Program has 

provided tens of thousands of grants to local, state and tribal governments for planning, acquisition and development of outdoor recreation lands and facilities throughout the country. Seventy-five percent of the total funds obligated have gone to locally sponsored projects to provide close-to-home recreation opportunities that are 

readily accessible to America’s youth, adults, senior citizens and the physically or 

mentally challenged. 

The American Battlefield Protection Program provides grants to states and other 

partners to protect Civil War battlefields. These grants are often leveraged 3:1, and 

49 

the long term conservation of these sites drives significant tourism development. 

Similarly, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (section 6 of the 

ESA) provides grants to States and Territories to participate in a wide array of voluntary conservation projects for candidate, proposed, and listed species. These competitive grants enable states to work with private landowners, conservation groups 

and other government agencies to initiate conservation planning efforts and acquire 

and protect habitat that benefits threatened and endangered fish, wildlife and 

plants. 

The Department takes seriously its responsibility to maintain facilities and infrastructure at the sites that it manages, and has proposed budget increases for this 

maintenance in the Administration’s budget request. If confirmed, I am committed 

to working with the Committee to explore available opportunities for a long-term 

solution to these funding issues. 

Question 4. Recently, the National Park Service has closed a number of preserves 

in Alaska to certain methods of bear and wolf hunting or shortened the hunting seasons as defined by the Alaska Board of Game. When instituting the closures, the 

NPS has cited ‘‘Park Values’’ in those closures. 

a. Don’t you believe that Alaskans should be able to conduct their traditional and 

customary hunting techniques in Alaska? 

Answer. From my work with the Cup’ik community in Chevak, I know that Alaska Natives have relied on traditional harvest of wild foods for centuries. I also know 

that subsistence practices have also become important to many non-Native Alaskans, particularly in rural Alaska. While I understand that the management of subsistence harvests of natural resources can be difficult, I believe we have an obligation to provide rural Alaskans on federal lands the opportunity for customary and 

traditional harvest and use of natural resources while maintaining healthy fish and 

wildlife populations. 

Question 4b. Can you provide me with a definition of ‘‘Park Values’’? 

Answer. I understand the general definitions of park resources and values are 

found in Section 1.4.6. of the National Park Service’s Management Policies. Specifically relating to this issue, the National Park Service has informed me that section 

101 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act cites ‘‘values’’ among 

the purposes for establishing conservation areas. Section 1313 of the Act authorizes 

the NPS to designate where and when to close or restrict hunting in preserves for 

reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use 

and enjoyment. 

Question 4c. Do you believe that the State of Alaska has the right to manage wildlife within the borders of the State? When is it proper for the federal government 

to reverse State Board of Game decisions? 

Answer. The State of Alaska has the right to manage wildlife within the State. 

Non-conflicting State general hunting and trapping regulations are adopted on 

lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System and on National Parks and Preserves. However, if State regulations conflict with federal statutes and policy that 

govern management of federal lands, then it is appropriate for the federal government to act to ensure that State measures do not compromise wildlife conservation 

and management actions mandated by federal law. 

Question 5. On September 19, 2013 the Energy Committee held the first subsistence oversight hearing since the creation of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 

One area where everyone can agree is that the dual management framework in 

Alaska is not working for our rural residents. There are two areas where we are 

focusing our initial reform efforts. 

a. The first is the Federal Subsistence Board. We would like to add additional 

subsistence users to the Board, in order to have an equal split between Alaska users 

and the FSB which makes the decisions that impact their livelihood. Additionally, 

we would like to reform the Rural Determination Process, which currently reconsiders the rural status of Alaska’s communities every decade, leaving many Alaskans constantly worrying about their rural preference or lack thereof. Will you commit to working on this pressing reform effort? If so, when could I expect to hear 

from DOI in response to my letter dated October 25, 2013? 

Answer. Yes, I commit to working on this effort with you and your staff, if I am 

confirmed. In Alaska, the Department has a special responsibility is to ensure fish 

and wildlife resources are available now and in the future for rural Alaskans who 

rely on subsistence harvest. I understand that the management of subsistence harvests of natural resources is complicated. There are a number of laws that provide 

many mandates related to management; there are multiple management entities 

with subsistence management responsibilities; and there are many different subsistence users who are affected by management of harvest. Opportunities to streamline, 

50 

clarify and simplify these efforts should be pursued. If confirmed, I would look forward to learning more about the issues and working with you on ways to improve 

subsistence management for users that ensure natural resources are available for 

subsistence harvest in the long-term. 

With respect to the October 25, 2013, letter you reference, I understand that the 

Department has been coordinating with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on a response, which you will receive shortly. 

Question 5b. The second area of our subsistence reform focus is with Self-Governance Agreements. Current law allows each National Park Unit and National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to enter into a self-governance agreement with a local tribe 

to allow the tribe to conduct a range of work and activities on those federal lands, 

including subsistence management work. If confirmed, would you commit to expanding the use of self-governance agreements in Alaska? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with you to improve the opportunities 

for Native Alaskans to work more collaboratively and concertedly with both the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. 

Question 6. Recently, the USFWS put out their final guidance on the significantly 

altered definition relating to the Alaska Native harvest of sea otters. While I am 

thankful for the agency’s efforts on this so far, I have been somewhat frustrated by 

the length of time it took to reach this positive outcome and very much hope that 

it will work in good faith to ensure that this new definition is understood by Alaska 

Natives in Southeast Alaska. Will the USFWS commit to me that it will hold briefings throughout the villages of Southeast Alaska to ensure that all interested residents truly understand the new definition? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with the Service to ensure that the 

new definition is understood by affected Alaska Native communities and to finding 

the most effective and efficient means to conduct outreach to interested residents 

of Southeast Alaska to that end. 

Question 7. For decades now the federal government has been engaged in a proposal to establish an international park spanning the Bering Straits in Alaska and 

Russia. On September 30, 2013 the National Park Service indicated that the latest 

draft Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Russia for Berinigia 

will be released shortly. Alaskans are increasingly concerned about the prospects 

that this agreement will be finalized in the near future and the impacts that this 

will have on the region and Alaskan stakeholder concerns remain largely 

unaddressed. It is very troubling that the federal government is looking to impose 

this without articulating any type of benefits for the local population. What are your 

views on the idea of an international park? Would you support the Beringia proposal even though local and state government entities continue to have unanswered 

concerns and many tribal groups have expressed their desire not to move forward? 

Answer. I understand that international cooperation has been in place in the Bering Strait area for over 20 years, and that the Shared Beringian Heritage Program 

has enabled cultural and scientific exchanges between Alaskans and Russians and 

grants to Alaska Native corporations, tribal groups, the University of Alaska and 

many Alaska-based scientists. I also understand that the State Department has proposed a non-binding memorandum of understanding that would recognize the recent 

addition of a national park in Russia and add a degree of formality to the international cooperation. However, this MOU would not establish an international park 

nor would it change regulations, access, or subsistence uses. I also understand that 

there is currently no proposal before Congress to establish such a park. 

I agree that local, state and tribal stakeholders should be engaged in the discussion of this MOU. If confirmed, I will work closely with the NPS to ensure that they 

fully engage the local, state and tribal stakeholders and work to address any concerns that they may have concerning the MOU. 

Question 8. Please describe the extent to which USFWS has responded to the 

President’s July 1, 2013 Executive Order on combating wildlife trafficking. 

Answer. Illegal trafficking of wildlife and their derivative parts and products and 

the poaching of protected species is estimated to be a multibillion-dollar international enterprise. It is an underpinning of transnational organized crime that fosters instability and undermines national security. Across the United States Government, we are working to identify new approaches to crack down on poaching and 

wildlife trafficking. I know that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been working for 

decades with partners in countries across the globe to conserve imperiled wildlife. 

The President’s Executive Order is bringing together agencies from across the federal government to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat wildlife trafficking. 

The Service is providing key leadership and capacity in this effort, and has supported the Secretary in establishing the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking 

which will make recommendations to the Presidential Task Force led by the AttorVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA
51 

ney General and the Secretaries of State and Interior, as established by the E.O. 

The Service is also engaging the Council’s expertise in law enforcement and criminal 

justice, wildlife biology and conservation, finance and trade, and international relations and diplomacy to develop and implement a national strategy. The Council recently held its first meeting here at the Department on December 16, 2013. 

Question 9. The USFWS recently extended the duration of its programmatic permits for non-purposeful take of bald and golden eagles by wind facilities from 5 

years to 30 years. 

a. Please explain how the USFWS arrived at the 30 year figure. What is the rationale for 30 years instead of 10, 15, 20, or 25? 

b. How do you reconcile the Service’s ongoing opposition to the King Cove gravel 

road in Alaska with this recent decision to grant permits that allow for the taking 

of eagles at wind farms around the country? What is your personal opinion of the 

King Cove road? 

c. The new rulemaking notes the Service’s intention to incorporate mitigation 

measures into the permit. Please explain these mitigation requirements and provide 

specific examples. 

d. Are there any other programmatic, non-purposeful taking activities relevant to 

golden eagles and bald eagles known to the Service besides wind energy projects, 

and have you discussed mitigation efforts with any applicant that is not a wind energy project? 

Answer. My understanding is that the Fish and Wildlife Service, working with 

stakeholders in the course of developing the rulemaking to grant permits for industry for the incidental taking of eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act, sought to extend the maximum permit term from five years to 30 years to reflect the actual operational life of renewable energy and other long-term project operations. These permits are subject to a recurring five-year review process for the 

duration of the permit. 

I also understand that the development of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and the Service’s eagle permitting rulemaking were each prepared in accordance with all applicable statutes, and that the 

Service is working with industry to develop Advanced Conservation Practices and 

mitigation practices for energy projects as part of the programmatic take permit 

process. Examples of compensatory mitigation measures the Service and industry 

are working on as part of the current permit process include retrofitting power lines 

that currently pose a risk of electrocution to eagles, clearing roadways of animal carcasses which can threaten scavenging eagles, and increasing the availability of eagle 

prey. 

There are also projects and operations of industries other than wind energy that 

can result in incidental take of bald eagles and golden eagles. An example is the 

electric power line industry. The Service has worked with this industry for many 

years to develop best management practices to avoid and minimize the taking of eagles. If confirmed, I will work to ensure this constructive working relationship with 

this industry and others continues as effective conservation and mitigation practices 

are developed. 

Regarding the King Cove road proposal, I believe that we should do everything 

we can to accommodate the critical human health and safety needs of the people 

of King Cove while providing adequate protections for the refuge. 

Question 10. On December 5, 2013, President Obama issued a directive calling for 

the executive branch’s departments and agencies to acquire 20 percent of their electric energy from renewable resources by Fiscal Year 2020. 

a. Please explain how the executive branch arrived at the 20 percent figure. 

b. In his last two State of the Union addresses, the President called for an 80 percent Clean Energy Standard mandate by 2035 for the utility sector. Why isn’t the 

federal government attempting to achieve the President’s own 80 percent goal? 

c. In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress required that federal agencies purchase at least 7.5 percent of their electrical power from renewable resources by FY 

2013. Has the federal government met this statutory requirement? 

Answer. The 20 percent figure was first announced by the President in June in 

his Climate Action Plan. The figure was developed by the White House, in coordination with a number of agencies. Implementing sustainability actions like this are 

consistent with the Department’s overarching mission. 

My understanding of the President’s proposal for a Clean Energy Standard of 80 

percent by 2035 is that it is a long-term goal targeted at energy production, as opposed to the shorter-term goals focused on sustainable performance, similar to the 

provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 referenced in your question. Those provisions of the Energy Policy Act are tracked for the Administration through the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program. The Department’s perVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA
52 

formance with regard to that statutory requirement is highlighted in the Department’s Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, which can be found at: http:// 

www.doi.gov/greening/sustainabilityllplan/upload/ 

2013lDOIlSSPPllwebsite.pdf. Last year the Department exceeded the Energy 

Policy Act goal with 8.6 percent of its electrical use coming from renewable sources. 

RESPONSES OF RHEA SUH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SCOTT

Wilderness 

Question 11. In a June 2007 ‘‘Q&A’’ with ‘‘Foundations’’ you made a number of 

very concerning statements regarding land and resources management, particularly 

to those who understand the importance of energy production for job creation and 

economic growth. In reference to Wilderness protection you said, ‘‘It’s the crown 

jewel of what environmentalists work for in public land.’’ Please expand upon what 

you mean by that statement. 

If confirmed, how much direct involvement will you have in advocating for or 

working on potential Wilderness designations? 

Answer. Wilderness areas are great places to hunt and fish and include some of 

the best representation of our natural heritage in the country. It is but one of many 

designations, but one that only Congress can make. I have demonstrated in my current job that I support our obligations associated with multiple-use and if confirmed, 

will work with Congress to continue to pursue balanced approaches to conservation 

and development. 

Question 12. Secretary Jewell has complained about the lack of activity in Congress in regards to Wilderness designations and has said that if Congress doesn’t 

act, the administration will act by using the Antiquities Act to unilaterally designate areas as National Monuments. 

In your current role, specifically what has your involvement been in developing 

any lists of potential areas to be designated as National Monuments under the Antiquities Act? 

If confirmed, how much direct involvement will have in Antiquities Act designations? 

Did you have any involvement in the Department’s creation of the ‘‘Wild Lands’’ 

policy? If so, specifically what was your level of involvement and what work did you 

perform? 

Answer. In my role as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, 

I was not and have not been involved in developing any lists of potential areas to 

be designated as National Monuments, nor am I aware that any such lists exist. 

I also was not involved in the creation of the Wild Lands Policy. 

If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, I would be 

involved in policy discussions regarding potential monument designations with respect to NPS and FWS lands. Any activities by the Department would be guided 

by the Secretary’s belief that efforts should focus on areas where there is a 

groundswell of public support; that there will be a commitment to public engagement and the involvement of local communities; and that decisions will not be driven by lists made in Washington but by the input of citizens on the ground and Members of Congress. 

Energy Production 

Question 13. In the same ‘‘Foundations’’ Q&A, you called natural gas development, ‘‘Easily the single greatest threat to the ecological integrity of the West.’’ Even 

President Obama has recognized the importance of natural gas production to America’s economy, job creation and energy security. Do you still believe natural gas production is the single greatest threat to the ecological integrity of the West? If so, 

why? If not, what do you consider the single greatest threat to ecological integrity 

of the West? 

Answer. As I stated at my confirmation hearing, I strongly support the President’s 

all-of-the-above energy strategy, which focuses on development of our resources in 

a responsible fashion and in the right places, and specifically the role that natural 

gas plays in that strategy. The public lands managed by the Department account 

for about 20 percent of the natural gas production in the country. As Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, I promoted robust budgets for safe and 

responsible oil and gas development, and I believe that these budgets demonstrate 

that natural gas is a priority and that development of these resources can take place 

in a balanced, responsible way. 

Question 14. Specifically, what are your critiques or concerns of how individual 

States have regulated hydraulic fracturing? 

53 

Answer. The Department of the Interior does not regulate hydraulic fracturing on 

state lands. The proposed regulations address hydraulic fracturing on lands under 

the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and on Indian lands. As I noted 

in my response to the previous question, natural gas has played and will continue 

to play a crucial role in America’s economy. 

Question 15. Have you had any involvement in the development of the largely duplicative hydraulic fracturing regulations proposed by BLM? If so, please explain to 

what degree and specifically what work you performed. 

Answer. In my role as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget 

I am aware of the ongoing rulemaking; however I have not been involved in the substantive development of the proposed regulations. 

Question 16. If confirmed, what will be your involvement in your new capacity in 

the implementation of the BLM fracking regulations? 

Answer. The position for which I have been nominated does not oversee the Bureau of Land Management, the principal agency within the Department of the Interior that manages development of oil and gas resources on public lands. Consequently, if confirmed I would have little, if, any involvement in implementation 

of the BLM’s regulations. 

Question 17. Do you believe the federal government should regulate hydraulic 

fracturing on state and private lands as well as federal lands? 

Answer. The Department’s jurisdiction for regulating hydraulic fracturing through 

the Bureau of Land Management applies only to the federal and Indian mineral estates. The position for which I have been nominated does not oversee the development of natural gas resources on public lands. 

National Ocean Policy 

Question 18. Recommendations adopted in the National Ocean Policy Executive 

Order state that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will require ‘‘significant initial investment of both human and financial resources,’’ and in early 2012 the National Ocean Council noted that federal agencies had been asked to provide information about how ‘‘existing resources [can] be repurposed for greater efficiency and effectiveness’’ in furtherance of the National Ocean Policy. Furthermore, according to 

the Interior Department, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and National Park Services officials 

in the Alaska, Caribbean, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Pacific Islands, South Atlantic, and West Coast regions have been involved in Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning activities. 

If confirmed, your responsibilities would include oversight of entities including the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife and National Park Services. In your capacity as Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget, please describe how many USFWS and 

NPS resources and personnel have been directed toward activities specifically in 

support of the National Ocean Policy to date, and how many resources and personnel are being requested to support such activities in the FY 2014 budget request. 

Please describe the USFWS and NPS responses if any to the National Ocean 

Council inquiry about the repurposing of existing resources, and any actions that 

USFWS and NPS have taken or plan to take in this regard. 

Answer. The Department tracks funding for programmatic activities related to 

ocean and coastal areas including the Great Lakes but not for work related to the 

National Ocean Policy. The Department’s cross cut of mandatory and discretionary 

funding related to these ocean and coastal areas includes such activities as funding 

to support the offshore oil and gas development program. The cross cut indicates 

$245.8 million in related ocean and coastal activities in FY 2014, including Sport 

Fish Restoration grant estimates and $93.5 million for similar National Park Service activities, which include Everglades Restoration and Research. I am not aware 

of FWS or NPS funding or personnel information related to the National Ocean Policy or of any FWS or NPS responses regarding the inquiry to which you refer. 

Question 19. According to the USFWS FY2014 Budget Justification, the Coastal 

Program is the Service’s ‘‘lead for implementing the National Ocean Policy’’ and 

USFWS is ‘‘helping lead DOI’s role in developing the National Ocean Policy.’’ Under 

this request, USFWS notes that ‘‘[t]here is no separate budget line item for the National Ocean Policy or National Ocean Council in the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 

budget as the National Policy uses existing authorities and resources to strengthen 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes stewardship.’’ 

Of the $14.948 million for the Service’s Coastal Program in FY2014, how many 

resources would be allocated in support of the National Ocean Policy, and what specific activities would those resources support? 

Answer. The Department maintains a crosscut of funding that supports oceans 

and coastal related resource management. The cross cut does not identify any resources that support the National Ocean Policy. 

54 

Question 20. Section 6(b) of Executive Order 135474 that established the National 

Ocean Policy in July 2010 requires ‘‘[e]ach executive department, agency, and office 

that is required to take actions under this order shall prepare and make publicly 

available an annual report including a concise description of actions taken by the 

agency in the previous calendar year to implement the order, a description of written comments by persons or organizations regarding the agency’s compliance with 

this order, and the agency’s response to such comments.’’ 

Pursuant to this requirement, have USFWS or NPS been asked to prepare and/ 

or actually prepared a summary of such activities for calendar years 2010, 2011, or 

2012? 

Answer. I have been advised that neither bureau prepared their own reports, as 

the requirement to take action under this Executive Order lies with the Department. Staff from both bureaus submitted material for the Department’s Ocean Policy accomplishment reports in 2010 and 2011. Due to the focus on completing the 

Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, no accomplishments report was requested by the 

National Ocean Council for 2012. 

Question 21. The recommendations adopted by the National Ocean Policy Executive Order state that effective implementation will require ‘‘clear and easily understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that include enforcement as 

a critical component.’’ In addition, the Executive Order requires federal entities including the Interior Department to implement the policy to the fullest extent possible. At the same time, the National Ocean Council has stated that the National 

Policy ‘‘does not establish any new regulations or restrict any ocean uses or activities.’’ 

If confirmed, what if any commitment can you make that USFWS and NPS will 

not issue any regulations or take any actions having a regulatory impact pursuant 

to the National Ocean Policy, including Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning? 

Answer. I am advised that none of the National Ocean Policy Implementation 

Plan actions in which the Department is involved, including specifically those involving the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, have any elements that require or contemplate new regulations. The implementation actions 

should, through increased interagency and federal-state cooperation, generate better 

and more timely information that can help inform our decisions. New regulations 

from the Department, or these two bureaus, are not part of the plan to implement 

the Policy. 

RESPONSE OF RHEA SUH TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR RISCH

Question 22. Public Data—The Endangered Species Act requires the use of ‘‘the 

best scientific and commercial data available’’. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

has yet to release this data from the 2010 ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ determination 

for sage grouse. I would respectfully request the data be release prior to the confirmation of Ms. Suh. Will you do so? 

Answer. The Endangered Species Act directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

make its determinations under the Act using the best scientific and commercial data 

available. I fully support this critical aspect of the Act, as does this Administration. 

I understand that there are instances when the best available data is peer reviewed 

scientific studies published in scientific journals or monographs, where access to the 

underlying raw data is proprietary and therefore under the control of the author 

and/or the journal. I am not familiar with the specifics of the circumstance your 

question references, but if confirmed I would be happy to look into the matter and 

report back to you. 

RESPONSES OF RHEA SUH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR PORTMAN

Question 23. There is need for reform of the federal permitting process. The 

United States ranks 17th in the world in the time it takes to get a government 

green-light to actually build something—one of the ten International Monetary 

Fund metrics for the ‘‘ease of doing business.’’ Under the current system, businesses 

seeking approval for major capital projects often must run the bureaucratic gauntlet 

of a dozen separate agencies, and the threat of litigation looms as long as 6 years 

after securing all required approvals. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) permits 

are required for many domestic energy projects. Do you think there is room for the 

FWS to improve how efficiently those permits are processed? If so, are there specific 

measures you would take to improve the process? 

Answer. Over the past two years, the Department and its agencies have worked 

closely with OMB and CEQ in responding to the President’s Executive Order on Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects, 

a government-wide initiative to improve Federal decision-making processes, while 

55 

producing measurably better outcomes for communities and the environment. To 

date, agencies have expedited the review and permitting of 51 selected major infrastructure projects and have identified a set of best practices for infrastructure permitting and review, including expanding the use of IT tools and improving early coordination across agencies. The Department is working closely with OMB and CEQ 

in developing a plan that institutionalizes these best practices and modernizes procedures for the review and permitting of major infrastructure projects. 

FWS is also collaborating with the BLM and other bureaus and agencies, as well 

as state and local partners, to improve planning early and at the landscape scale. 

Collaborative efforts such as the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan and 

multi-stakeholder efforts to ensure the viability of sage grouse populations are setting a new standard for planning that will allow project proponents to avert conflict 

in advance, contribute to landscape-scale outcomes, and ultimately expedite permitting. Another important element is to integrate various environmental reviews into 

a unified process, with clear timelines and accountability. 

If confirmed, I would continue to work on these critical issues, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the Service’s role and track record in permitting and review of energy projects. Sen 

Question 24. The FWS has proposed declaring the northern long-eared bat an endangered species and is expected to make a final decision on this in January. I understand that this species of bat is found in 39 states and Canada, including: Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Can you provide my office data on what FWS estimates the economic impact would be of listing 

the long-eared bat as an endangered species, both nationally and for Ohio? 

Answer. I have been advised that the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list 

the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species on October 2, 2013, and recently extended the comment period for the listing proposal for an additional 30 

days, until January 2, 2014. The Service anticipates making a final listing determination, after consideration of public comments and an independent scientific peer 

review, before October 2, 2014. The Service is precluded by the Endangered Species 

Act from considering economic impacts during the listing determination process. All 

other aspects of the ESA, however, including consultation among agencies on federal 

actions, incidental take permitting, designation of critical habitat, and designing 

and implementing recovery actions, consider economic impacts in decision-making. 

Question 25. I have been told that the proposed listing involved only three speciesspecific investigations and that this is inconsistent with prior listings that involve 

dozens of studies prior to a decision, such as the listing of the Indiana Bat. If confirmed, will you agree to conduct a review of the FWS proposal for the long-eared 

bat to be federally listed as an endangered species and ensure that FWS did not 

relax its standards on scientific investigation and species-specific study for this proposal? 

Answer. The Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to use 

the best available scientific information in making determinations under the Act. I 

have been informed that the Service solicits independent scientific peer review of 

its proposed listing determinations, and that one of the reasons for doing so is to 

validate that it identified and appropriately considered the best available scientific 

information in its proposal. The public comment period provided by the ESA and 

the independent scientific peer review of all listing proposals are designed to ensure 

meaningful opportunities for any additional relevant scientific information to be provided to the Service, or for deficiencies to be identified. If confirmed, I would be 

happy to discuss this issue with you and further understand your concerns. 

Question 26. When I was OMB director, I worked with both parties in Congress 

to secure support for a partnership program that provided needed financial support 

for the parks. Finding a fiscally sustainable path forward for our national parks continues to be one of my top priorities. As you may know, the deferred maintenance 

backlog has grown to $11.5 billion. Do you have ideas for reducing the backlog? 

Answer. This is one of the more significant issues facing the National Park Service and it is a difficult and longstanding issue that several Administrations have 

faced. In my role as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, I am 

aware that the facilities and roads in the parks are an essential part of meeting 

the mission of the National Park Service. In our constrained fiscal environment, we 

must find a way to embrace new opportunities to address this need. 

I know that you care deeply about this issue and took steps to address it while 

the Director of OMB. Likewise, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has 

taken innovative steps to address the maintenance backlog, most recently by allocating additional funds to be leveraged with non-federal funds for this purpose. We 

know that we cannot look solely to appropriations to address this challenge, we need 

to look to other funding models in the both the government and commercial sectors. 

56 

Currently, the National Park Service is working on expanding public-private partnerships, and is developing a strategy to expand the potential universe of philanthropic interest and support, with maintenance as a key area for this effort. 

In addition to these strategies, we also have the opportunity to expand innovative 

solutions like Energy Savings Performance Contracts across the country to be as efficient as we can be with the resources that we have, and focus them on the most 

critical facilities. Currently, we are developing a contract to assess energy use at 

sites in the National Park Service’s National Capital Region with potential for energy and water savings. I believe there is capacity to do more of these across the 

country. 

I also believe that the National Park Service must focus on key assets that are 

mission essential and key to operations. Evaluating each and every building, utility, 

and other facility in the system, and actively managing the facilities footprint, will 

allow us to eliminate unneeded facilities and those that have outlived their useful 

life. This will also help to reduce the backlog. 

Lastly, it is important to note that about one-half of the maintenance backlog is 

transportation related—about 49 percent of the infrastructure backlog needs in national parks are roads, bridges, and alternative transportation systems. These needs 

are broader than those currently funded by MAP- 21, and a significant opportunity 

exists for addressing a portion of these needs with the Federal Lands Highways Administration. I look forward to working with you and other Members of the Committee to resolve this difficult issue, if confirmed. 

Question 27. Do you consider historic leases in parks to be a viable way to help 

parks mitigate the operation and maintenance backlog? 

Answer. Leasing authority is a valuable tool for NPS to use in managing its assets; however, it is limited by market forces. The NPS roughly estimates that only 

between 1 and 3 percent of the deferred maintenance could be resolved by leases. 

Leasing generally works well in urban areas where favorable market fundamentals 

and business opportunities exist, such as at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

However, any prospective lessee must be able to afford the upfront investment many 

structures require, including costs to address deferred maintenance. This initial cost 

often results in no private-sector interest in the building. The NPS is working to 

improve the use of leasing by developing a more active leasing program and leasingspecific training, and encouraging parks to assess buildings for leasing opportunities. 

Question 28. Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio has grown its volunteer program, co-managed by the park and the Conservancy, to 5,900 volunteers and over 

200,000 hours annually. Their volunteers include youth, families, corporations and 

individuals from diverse backgrounds. Do you see volunteer programs as a key supporting our parks? Do you think the National Park Service policies adequately support philanthropy and the park mission? 

Answer. Volunteer contributions are vital in supporting the park mission. NPS 

policies strongly support volunteer programs as well as other means of contributing 

to the NPS mission. Not only do volunteers provide cost-effective support for highpriority programs and projects, they engage members of the community in accomplishing the NPS mission while fostering an understanding and appreciation of park 

resources. In FY 2013, the NPS engaged 246,000 volunteers who contributed 

6,700,000 hours valued at over $148 million. 

I know that one of Secretary Jewell’s highest priorities is engaging a new generation in the mission of the Department, and one of the ways we plan on doing that 

is by expanding the number of volunteers on our lands to 1 million annually, which 

represents a nearly threefold expansion. This goal is further leveraged by the approach of the NPS Centennial in 2016, and I expect that there will be renewed interest in volunteering with the NPS and a heightened opportunity to expand volunteer engagement and management. 

The National Park Foundation is the National Park Service’s key partner in 

leveraging philanthropy for parks across the country and in preparation for the 

100th anniversary, the Foundation is expanding its efforts to solicit contributions 

to support the Parks. In addition, there are more than one hundred friends groups 

associated with individual park units working to support the efforts of those parks. 

I believe there is an opportunity to strengthen and expand these groups to engage 

with local communities and private interests in support of the national parks. 

RESPONSES OF RHEA SUH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FLAKE

Question 29. During the recent government shutdown, the State of Arizona provided $465,000 to temporarily reopen the Grand Canyon National Park. Likewise, 

in 1995, the State of Arizona provided $370,125 to temporarily reopen the Park durVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA
57 

ing the shutdown that occurred that year. In both instances, Congress retroactively 

appropriated funds to the Park Service that covered the shutdown period. In 1995, 

the Park Service subsequently refunded the full amount to the State of Arizona. 

This time, however, the Park Service has retained a ‘‘shutdown windfall’’ refusing 

to refund money to the State, even though it also received retroactive appropriations. Can you explain the difference in policy between 1995 and 2013? 

Question 30. Would you support a full refund to the State of Arizona for the 

amount it provided in 2013 to temporarily reopen the Grand Canyon National Park, 

so as to avoid a shutdown windfall for the Park Service? 

Question 31. If you believe congressional action is required to fully refund the 

State, why was congressional action not required in 1995? 

Question 32. If you believe congressional authority was provided following the 

1995 shutdown to refund the State of Arizona, please provide a citation to that congressional authority. 

Question 33. Do you believe there is a distinction between ‘‘refunding’’ a state following a retroactive appropriation and ‘‘reimbursing’’ a state, when Congress does 

not provide a retroactive appropriation? 

Question 34. On November 13, 2013, I joined eight members of the Arizona delegation (Republicans and Democrats), in sending a letter to National Park Service 

Director Jarvis urging him to follow past practice and provide a full refund to the 

State of Arizona for temporarily reopening the Grand Canyon during the government shutdown or to explain why the Park Service was choosing to retain a ‘‘shutdown windfall.’’ When can we expect a response to that letter? 

Answer. Response to Questions 29-34: I understand that Director Jarvis signed 

a response to you on January 6, 2014. 

As a result of the recent lapse of appropriations, the National Park Service was 

required to close all 401 national parks across the country and furlough more than 

20,000 National Park Service employees who ensure the safety of visitors and the 

security of the resources. Responding to the economic impacts that these park closures were having on many communities and local businesses, Secretary Jewell announced that the National Park Service would consider agreements with Governors 

who indicated an interest and ability to fully fund National Park Service personnel 

to re-open national parks in their states. 

The National Park Service entered into such a donation agreement with Governor 

Brewer. Under this agreement, the State of Arizona donated to the National Park 

Service a total of $651,000, equivalent to funding for seven days of operations at 

Grand Canyon National Park (at the rate of $93,000 per day). When Congress enacted appropriations to end the government shutdown, the Park had been open for 

five days. The National Park Service promptly returned the unobligated, unexpended balance of $186,000 to the State. However, the National Park Service does 

not have the authority to return those funds that had already been obligated or expended. 

During the lapse in appropriations in 1995, the National Park Service also entered into a donation agreement with the State of Arizona to provide for operations 

at Grand Canyon National Park. However, before any moneys were expended or obligated under that 1995 agreement, Congress enacted appropriations to end the government shutdown. Consequently, the National Park Service returned to the State 

the unobligated, unexpended balance, which was the full amount donated to the National Park Service. 

As I noted in response to your question at the hearing, I understand that an act 

of Congress is needed to provide the National Park Service with the authority to 

reimburse the State for that portion of the donated funding that was expended or 

obligated to operate Grand Canyon National Park in 2013. 

Question 35. You previously supported grants for water projects that analyzed 

‘‘how much water can safely be taken from the Colorado River.’’ Do you believe 

water managers and policy makers in the Colorado River Basin are best suited to 

address projected Colorado River water imbalances? 

Answer. Yes. The Colorado River Basin is one of the most critical sources of water 

in the West, and it is currently facing record drought. In December 2012, the Bureau of Reclamation released the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand 

Study, which was conducted with participation and input from a broad range of 

stakeholders throughout the Colorado River Basin. The Study was to define future 

imbalances in water supply and demand in the Basin through the year 2060, and 

develop and analyze options and strategies to resolve those imbalances. Engaging 

with water managers and policy makers in the Colorado River Basin, through the 

next steps of the Study and otherwise, will be critical to addressing Colorado River 

water imbalances. 

58 

Question 36. Given that your role with regard to the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

as well as the National Park Service will involve watershed issues generally and 

the Colorado River more specifically do you believe water augmentation, as well as 

water conservation should be used to address water imbalances, including those projected along the Colorado River? 

Answer. Aside from the Colorado River and its tributaries providing water to 

nearly 40 million people for municipal use and for irrigation of nearly 5.5 million 

acres of land, it also represents the lifeblood for at least 22 federally recognized Indian tribes, seven National Wildlife Refuges, four National Recreation Areas, and 

11 National Parks. In order to address ongoing concerns regarding the reliability of 

the Colorado River system, the Bureau of Reclamation completed the Colorado River 

Basin Water Supply and Demand Study in December 2012. This Study projects 

water supply and demand imbalances throughout the Colorado River Basin and adjacent areas over the next 50 years and identifies a wide range of potential options 

to resolve supply and demand imbalances in the Basin. A process has begun to move 

beyond the Study, which involves multi-stakeholder workgroups and representatives 

of the Department’s National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 

Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey. These work groups are actively exploring 

additional efforts that could reduce supply-demand imbalances, including agriculture and municipal water conservation programs as well as augmentation. 

Question 37. Do you support the Colorado River Compact and subsequent Law of 

the River statutes, decisions, and agreements that have led to the equitable apportionment of the Colorado River among the Basin States and Mexico? 

Answer. Yes. The Colorado River Compact, along with the Mexican Water Treaty, 

the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, and the Arizona v. California litigation, 

form the foundation of the Law of the River, and I support upholding this framework in regard to the management of the Colorado River. 

RESPONSES OF RHEA SUH TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 38. Please provide a list of all policy positions, legal actions or threats 

of legal action, press releases, policy analysis, grants or public statements made by 

the Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, or Environmental Grantmakers Association or officials with those organizations during the 

time you served and were associated with those organizations, with which you disagreed or took an opposing view. 

Question 39. Please provide a short explanation of what action you took, if any, 

to articulate your disagreement with the policy positions, legal actions, press releases, policy analysis, grants, or public statements by the Hewlett Foundation, the 

David and Lucile Packard Foundation, or Environmental Grantmakers Association 

or officials with those organizations. 

Question 40. Please provide a list of all policy positions, legal actions or threats 

of legal action, press releases, policy analysis, grants or public statements made by 

the Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, or Environmental Grantmakers Association or officials with those organizations during the 

time you served or were associated with those organizations with which you now 

disagree or oppose. 

Answer. Response to Questions 38-40. The mission of the Hewlett Foundation is 

to solve social and environmental problems in the US and around the world. The 

Foundation’s programs have ambitious goals that include: helping to reduce global 

poverty, improving education for students in California and elsewhere, improving 

reproductive health and rights worldwide, supporting vibrant performing arts in the 

community, advancing the field of philanthropy, and supporting disadvantaged communities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Similarly, the Packard Foundation works 

on the issues its founders cared about most: improving the lives of children, enabling the creative pursuit of science, advancing reproductive health, and conserving 

and restoring the earth’s natural systems. The Environmental Grantmakers Association is a professional association of over 200 philanthropic organizations, including institutions such as the Ford Foundation and the Kellogg Foundation. The association’s mission was to foster knowledge sharing and collaboration among institutions. 

Both the Hewlett Foundation and the Packard Foundation conducted 

grantmaking that was designed to build institutional capacity for their grantees, 

helping them identify goals and indicators of their progress, as well as evaluating 

their success. The guiding principles they followed included making positive contributions to society; a belief in collaboration with others; and support for independent, non-partisan approaches. These are important attributes and ones that I 

plan to carry forward to this new position, if I am confirmed. Neither institution, 

59 

to my knowledge, is involved directly in any policy debate or legal action associated 

with policy debates. The Environmental Grantmakers Association is not a 

grantmaking institution but rather a professional association. To my knowledge, it 

does not have policy or legal capacity, take positions on policy or legal debates or 

issue press releases. 

Question 41. I am sure you are well aware of the agreement between the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), WildEarth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity regarding the potential listing of 750 new species across the country. One 

of these species of particular concern is the sage grouse. 

If a majority of such designations were to occur, economic development for rural 

communities would be severely impacted and thousands of people would lose their 

jobs. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that millions of acres of habitat 

are not designated over the next four years potentially hurting these communities? 

Answer. I know that this is an issue of great importance to you and other members who represent states that could be impacted by potential designation of sage 

grouse habitat. Secretary Jewell in her remarks to the Western Governors Association has said that collaboration is the key to effectively addressing the threats to 

sage grouse populations, and I agree with her. If confirmed for this position, one 

of my highest priorities will be to ensure that FWS continues to work collaboratively 

and proactively with the Bureau of Land Management, as well as state and local 

governments and private landowners, to take measures aimed at avoiding the need 

to list the species. 

Question 42. With regard to the sage grouse, if confirmed, how will you work to 

ensure that federal authority does not adversely impact those states that are already proactively working to conserve the sage grouse at a state level? 

Answer. As I noted in my response to the previous question, Secretary Jewell is 

committed to the principle that collaboration is key to addressing complex issues 

such as this. I know that the Department has been engaging states and working 

to ensure a coordinated effort to address the issue. I am aware that much has been 

accomplished through these partnerships, and I commit to continuing this proactive 

approach, if I am confirmed. 

Question 43. Do you believe sue and settle agreements are an open and transparent way to make public policy that significantly impacts Americans? 

Question 44. Do you believe states and communities impacted by sue and settle 

agreements should have a say in court agreements that might severely impact 

them? 

Question 45. If confirmed, would you agree not to enter into closed-door settlements where the public and affected states are not a party to these agreements? 

Question 46. If confirmed, would you open up litigation to local stakeholders and 

give impacted states and communities a seat at the table before any final agreements are signed? 

Answer. Response to Questions 43-46. While I was not a party to any of the discussions or decisions regarding the development of these settlements, I am aware 

that the FWS has recently finalized its plan to address the backlog of species that 

have been found to warrant protection under the ESA. Although it is not always 

possible to avoid litigation, if confirmed, I will ensure that the Department actively 

engages state and local governments and the public in the search for improved and 

innovative ways to conserve and recover imperiled species. 

Question 47. Governor Mead of Wyoming sent a letter to FWS Director, Dan Ashe, 

dated November 27, 2013, requesting that the FWS delay its proposed listing on the 

wolverine for 6 months to allow an independent panel to review the science used 

to justify the FWS’s assessment. 

a. Do you know if the FWS will allow, or would you allow, for this time? 

b. Do you think it is important that states impacted by these listings be allowed 

to submit their own independent evidence from biologists and scientists living and 

working in the state? 

Answer. Yes, the FWS has agreed to extend the timeframe for its listing decision 

by six months. I know that the Fish and Wildlife Service welcomes and solicits the 

input from scientists in affected states prior to listing and during the public comment period. I believe this is an indispensable component of the rulemaking process. 

RESPONSE OF TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. Virtually everywhere there are Federal lands and Federal waters 

there are practical community leaders working together to find ways for their citizens to have good paying jobs while they enjoy and preserve their scenic treasures. 

For example, in visiting Louisiana and Alaska to meet with the constituents of SenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA
60 

ator Landrieu and Senator Murkowski, I came away convinced that but for the wonderful Cajun accents of Senator Landrieu’s constituents, the meeting resembled 

those we have in Southern Oregon where timber industry leaders seek a sustainable 

harvest on Federal lands and environmentalists work to preserve old growth. Of 

course, it takes revenue to pay for the roads, parks and schools that spark private 

investment in their communities— and of course, additional revenue is needed for 

programs that conserve treasured land and waters. 

What I have been exploring is how to make common cause among the communities that provide natural resources the rest of the county enjoys. I’ve been looking 

for ways to ensure that those communities are protected from the boom-bust cycle 

that can occur and that they can have the necessary funding to restore their natural 

landscape. The office of Policy Management and Budget would seem to be uniquely 

situated to help look for these solutions. 

Can we work together to see if there’s a way to bring all these communities together and end this hodgepodge of programs? 

Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to work with you to identify ways that the federal government can fulfill its role of being a good neighbor 

to local communities and providing them the opportunity to have their voices heard. 

The Payment in Lieu of Taxes, Secure Rural Schools, and Land and Water Conservation Fund are examples of programs that provide tremendous benefits to communities throughout the country that help provide our nation with critical natural 

resources. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to identify collaborative, 

pragmatic, and creative approaches to providing sustainable, efficient support to 

these local communities. 

RESPONSES OF TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 2. I understand that the position you have been nominated for provides 

policy leadership on the Arctic. In your current role, your efforts have been critical 

to the Department’s efforts to develop regulations for the exploration of oil and gas 

resources on Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. As you know, the lack of regulatory 

certainty makes it difficult to do business in Alaska and provide the public with information on how exploration may move forward. 

a. Would your involvement in Alaska oil and gas issues change as Assistant Secretary for PMB? If so, please describe how your role may change. 

b. What is the status of the effort to develop regulations for oil and gas exploration in Alaska? 

Answer. During my time at the Interior Department I have worked on a broad 

range of issues that are important to the State of Alaska, including permitting and 

oversight of safe and responsible offshore oil and gas exploration. As I discussed at 

the hearing, I am personally committed to these issues and, if confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for PMB, I will be in a position to continue to provide leadership 

and support on these matters. For example, I currently act as the chair of the Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska and have been involved in developing a more integrated approach 

to managing the dynamic Arctic landscape, which includes building on relationships 

not only among the relevant federal agencies but with the State, industry, North 

Slope communities, and other key partners. Although the position of Assistant Secretary for PMB brings with it an additional set of responsibilities, as a principal policy advisor to the Secretary I can assure you that if confirmed for this new position 

I will continue to provide my support and experience on the many issues affecting 

Alaska, including responsible energy development. 

The development of regulations relating to oil and gas exploration offshore Alaska 

is a high priority for the Department, and as a result of a very intensive and focused 

effort over the past nine months substantial progress has been made in preparing 

the draft regulations. The draft regulations are being finalized and undergoing review, and we hope to publish the draft rulemaking for comment in early 2014. 

Question 3. The federal government both directly and under contract drilled some 

136 oil and gas and exploratory wells in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in 

the 1940s and again in the early 1980s. Many of those wells have not been properly 

capped and were instead abandoned. The State of Alaska has been seeking for years 

for Interior to do a better job of cleaning up its messes, just as the government 

would fine private developers who had not properly abandoned exploratory wells. 

Earlier this year the Administration proposed to use Alaska’s share of mineral leasing revenues to pay to remedy the federal messes—something I found totally unacceptable and unjust. While we approved $50 million in the recent helium legislation 

that may fund 16 more well cleanups over the next five years, as budget director, 

61 

do you believe it is the federal government’s responsibility to clean up all remaining 

wells at its own expense—not Alaska’s—in the future? 

Answer. I believe that the federal government has a responsibility to remediate 

and clean up the legacy NPR-A wells, and the Department and the Bureau of Land 

Management are committed to that effort. Earlier this year, BLM published its 

strategy to address these legacy wells, which includes establishing priorities with 

respect to the individual well sites to be remediated. I look forward to continuing 

to work with the Committee to ensure that BLM has the resources necessary to 

complete this important effort without diminishing our ability to address current 

and emerging issues, and appreciate very much the recent inclusion of funding in 

the Helium Reauthorization Act that will allow the BLM to accelerate progress on 

legacy well cleanup. 

Question 4. As you know from your current work at the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, both exploration and production of oil and gas from federal lands requires federal agencies to process environmental and other regulatory permits in a 

timely manner. In Alaska, delays in the permit processing cost years of time, given 

the short seasons for exploration. A prime example is what’s happening on our 

Kenai Peninsula, where several entities are having trouble gaining permits for seismic exploration and oil production from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other 

Interior agencies. As budget director, will you support allocating more money for 

permitting so that energy developers can have more comfort that needed permits 

will be issued on a timely basis? 

Answer. The Administration and Interior Department are committed to having a 

well-coordinated and efficient permitting process for energy-related projects in Alaska, so that permitting decisions are made in a timely fashion based on sound scientific information and with appropriate safeguards and environmental protections. 

This is the purpose of the Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic 

Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska, established by Executive Order, for 

which I act as the chair. If confirmed, I will continue to be focused on these issues 

and will work with our bureaus and partners to identify where the Department’s 

budget and staff resources can be used effectively to ensure safe and responsible energy exploration and development. 

Question 5. The U.S. Geological Survey has a host of important roles nationwide 

and especially in a state like Alaska. One of them is funding seismic research and 

data gathering to help detect both volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, both of 

which are major geophysical hazards for Americans and also real hazards to international aviation. 

a. Do you believe Interior should fully fund hazards work? 

b. Interior’s FY 2014 budget calls for sharp cuts to the Alaska Volcano Observatory, which monitors a couple dozen Aleutian Chain volcanoes threatening international aviation. Without $7 million of additional funding many of these seismic 

monitoring systems may fail by late next year or by 2015, threatening the reliability 

of the nation’s entire seismic monitoring program. What priority will you give USGS 

hazards programs in building Department budgets for future years? 

Answer. I agree that the U.S. Geological Survey’s work in natural hazards has 

direct benefits to communities across the country, is vitally important, and must to 

continue. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Bureau Directors and Assistant 

Secretaries to develop balanced funding recommendations for the Secretary’s consideration and presentation to the President. The USGS hazards programs serve a 

vital mission which will be fully considered along with all of Interior’s programs, 

within the context of significant budget constraints. 

Question 6. The federal government’s conveyance program of land owed to Alaska 

and Alaska Natives is mandated under the over 42-year-old Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA). The BLM has repeatedly proposed to cut the funding and 

personnel for the Alaska Conveyance Program and perhaps more egregiously, BLM 

proposes to take the State of Alaska’s 50-percent share of revenue from oil and natural gas activity in the NPR-A to pay for the land conveyance program and the Legacy Well Cleanup. I believe the BLM should fund conveyance and surveying closer 

to the $29 million that BLM provided in FY 12—without making Alaska pay for it. 

The Alaska Land Conveyance Program is very important both to the State of Alaska 

and Alaska Native Corporations who are eagerly awaiting their long promised lands 

to which they are entitled. 

a. If confirmed, can you commit to me that you will ensure that the Alaska Land 

Conveyance Program receives the necessary funding to complete the conveyances as 

expeditiously as possible? 

b. Do you believe that it is proper for the BLM to reduce the funding of a legislatively mandated program, and one which it is 40 years delinquent on fulfilling, 

62 

while spending funds on non-legislatively mandated programs, like climate change 

monitoring and adaptation? 

Answer. In light of my role as Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 

Management, I am aware of the importance of completing the Alaska Conveyance 

work and of recent innovative efforts by the Bureau of Land Management to identify 

ways to reduce the costs of surveys and expedite the program while maintaining the 

quality of the information upon which we base our recommendations and decisions. 

Recognizing the current constrained budget environment, I fully support BLM’s efforts to complete this work more quickly and less expensively. If confirmed, I will 

work closely with the Bureau Directors and Assistant Secretaries to develop balanced funding recommendations for the Secretary’s consideration and presentation 

to the President. Factored into this balance are statutory and contractual requirements, mission directed requirements, investments needed to perform Departmental 

missions more effectively, and deficit reduction considerations. 

Question 7. Please describe how you view the relationship between the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, and the Department of State, in 

terms of international activities related to energy development. Do any official documents, such as memoranda of understanding, govern this relationship? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior, through its natural resource, wildlife, 

and science agencies, conducts a broad array of international activities to accomplish its mission and in support of U.S. foreign policy priorities. The Department 

collaborates on these types of activities with the Department of State and Department of Energy where appropriate. On energy issues, key technical expertise resides 

within several Departmental bureaus, including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the Bureau of 

Land Management, and the United States Geological Survey. 

As Director of BOEM and Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, my interactions with these key partners have revolved primarily around 

the safe and responsible development of conventional and renewable energy resources. For example, I worked with personnel from BSEE and our key partner, the 

Department of State, during the negotiation of the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. Negotiation of this Agreement was based on a formal interagency document. 

The Department also worked closely with the Departments of State and Energy 

on the Ministerial Forum on Offshore Drilling Containment in Washington, DC, in 

2012. The Department and its bureaus also regularly provide critical support to the 

Department of State as it represents the U.S. in the Arctic Council on offshore oil 

and gas cooperation. Finally, the Departments of State and Energy often request 

and fund technical assistance provided by the Department and its bureaus, and the 

Department regularly makes technical experts available for meetings with visiting 

foreign officials, provides technical advice to the Departments of State and Energy, 

and coordinates with the relevant State and U.S. Embassy personnel when sending 

technical personnel to carry out activities in foreign countries. 

Question 8. To what extent, if any, has the Department of the Interior been involved in the formulation of the President’s forthcoming National Security Strategy? 

Answer. I understand that the Department participates in several interagency 

committees and subcommittees of the National Security Staff, and that the work of 

these committees informs the National Security Strategy, but that the Department 

has not been asked to participate directly in preparation of a forthcoming National 

Security Strategy document. 

RESPONSES OF TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CANTWELL

Question 9. The Yakima River basin supports over a billion dollars of agricultural 

production and thousands of jobs. It has suffered two severe droughts since 2001 

resulting in $335 million of economic damage, as well as damage to fish and wildlife. To address future droughts, concerns over the Endangered Species Act, groundwater availability and treaty fishing rights, the Yakama Tribe, irrigators, Washington State, local governments and environmentalists have worked together to develop the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Integrated Plan. That Plan was 

endorsed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 2012 when they issued a Record of Decision on a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and former Secretary of 

Interior Salazar toured the project to hear about the plan in 2011. This year the 

State of Washington committed $137 million to get the first elements of the Plan 

going and the Department of Interior has already invested over $10 million in 

studying the options for improving the project. 

63 

Can you commit to me that as the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management 

and Budget you will continue the Department’s Commitment to this the Yakima 

River Basin Water Enhancement Project? 

Answer. My understanding is that the President’s FY14 budget includes a request 

of $8 million for the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, of which $1 

million is targeted towards the Integrated Plan. To advance many of the Integrated 

Plan activities, my understanding is that legislation is needed to provide authority 

and/or additional cost ceiling. If confirmed, I will support the needs of the Bureau 

of Reclamation and the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science to continue the 

cooperative relationship with the State to further the goals of the Integrated Plan. 

Question 10. I also hope that we can work with you, if confirmed, to translate that 

commitment into increased funding in the President’s FY15 budget request. The 

State of Washington has shown its commitment with a $137 million investment over 

the next two years, and it is my hope that the federal government can make a 

strong contribution as well. Will you commit to work with my office in support of 

funding for the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project? 

Answer. The Department is currently working to develop funding recommendations for FY 2015. Recognizing the current Federal budget climate is very difficult, 

if confirmed, I would support the Department’s commitment to work collaboratively 

and creatively to further the goals of the Integrated Plan, including working with 

the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science and the Commissioner of the Bureau 

of Reclamation to identify funding for the project. 

Question 11. I am sure you know that the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act authorizes tribes to enter into contracts with the Department 

of the Interior and Indian Health Service to operate federal programs at the tribal 

level. The Act also provides the tribe with contract support costs which are the essential for the proper administration of federal contracts. Federal budgets have rarely provided enough resources to fully compensate tribes for their contract support 

costs. 

The Supreme Court ruled last year in Salazar v. Ramah that the Government 

must pay each tribe’s contract support costs in full. However, in the Fiscal Year 

2014 budget, the Department of the Interior did not request enough funding to cover 

all contract support costs. Further, Interior’s budget request seeks to cap each 

tribe’s contract support costs by statute to limit the Department’s liability. 

The Administration has stated that part of the reason it has not requested full 

funding for contract support costs is that doing so would necessarily force the Administration to cut into other program dollars. 

But, by not providing sufficient funds for contract support costs, aren’t the agencies forcing tribes that carry out federal programs to reduce the amounts that they 

would otherwise spend on carrying out their programs? 

How will you as director of Interior’s Budget Office ensure that the Agency accurately reports the need to Congress as required by current federal law? 

Answer. Full funding for contract support costs has been among the Tribes’ highest funding priorities and a key component of the success of Self-Determination programs. I also understand that contract support costs allow Tribes to manage the 

Federal programs for which they contract, and eliminate the need for Tribes to use 

program funds to fulfill administrative requirements. Funding for contract support 

costs remains a priority for Secretary Jewell and the Administration and, if confirmed, I will work with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and this Committee to pursue longer-term solutions in consultation with the Tribes to streamline 

and simplify the contract support cost process. 

RESPONSES OF TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 12. Under 43 CFR 2806.14 (a)(2)(ii), rural electric cooperatives are exempt from rental payments to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) when requesting or renewing rights-of-way (ROW) on public land managed by BLM. 

It is my understanding that, prior to granting a rental exemption, BLM requires 

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) within the Department of Agriculture to certify 

that a rural electric cooperative is an eligible RUS borrower. Historically, BLM required rural electric cooperatives to obtain a letter from RUS for each rental exemption. 

However, in March of this year, RUS issued a letter to BLM certifying that all 

rural electric cooperatives in Wyoming are RUS eligible borrowers and therefore exempt from having to pay rent either on an existing ROW or a new ROW. 

I understand that BLM, to date, has refused to rely on this letter for the purposes 

of granting rental exemptions. 

64 

Please explain in detail why BLM refuses to rely on the RUS letter certifying that 

all rural electric cooperatives in Wyoming are RUS eligible borrowers. 

Answer. Although I have not yet been formally briefed on the details of this issue, 

I have been advised that the Rural Utilities Service submitted a list of its current 

borrowers to the BLM with no statement specific to Wyoming. My understanding 

is that the information contained in the list does not satisfy statutory requirements 

for rental exemptions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It is my 

understanding, however, that the BLM and RUS have been working together to resolve this issue, and that both agencies recently agreed on an interim process to ensure the proper certification of these facilities. 

Question 13a. Grand Teton National Park recently began scoping an Environmental Impact Statement to study 10,000 acres for the 8 mile long Moose-Wilson 

Road. It appears the park is starting from scratch on the same road that was studied in 2007. 

At a time with significant park maintenance backlogs and budget cuts, do you believe it is in the best interest of taxpayers and park visitors to spend millions of 

dollars to restudy this road? 

Answer. My understanding from the National Park Service is that the 2007 transportation plan did not fully evaluate the Moose-Wilson Road corridor and that there 

are issues that have emerged since 2007, including increased presence and frequency of grizzly bears within the corridor. Filling in the gaps and ensuring the use 

of current, relevant, information is critical for developing an informed and useful 

plan that builds on the work done back in 2007. Regarding the costs associated with 

this evaluation, I have been assured that NPS is working hard to reduce the cost 

of the plan and the time required to complete it, including the costs of the associated visitor experience studies necessary to support the plan. 

Question 13b. In this case, do you believe an environmental assessment is more 

appropriate to study the road corridor? 

Answer. The National Environmental Policy Act provides that an EA may be prepared by an agency when it is not clear whether an EIS is required. It is my understanding that the NPS evaluated the level of NEPA compliance that would be necessary and determined that the likely outcome of an EA would be that it must prepare an EIS. Consequently, in the interest of expedience and cost, the NPS moved 

forward with an EIS. I know this issue is important to you and, if confirmed, I will 

work closely with the NPS to ensure that the plan is completed in a timely and cost 

effective manner. 

RESPONSES OF TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SCOTT

Question 14. As Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management and 

Budget, how much involvement will you have in the development of the next five 

year offshore leasing plan? 

Answer. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and 

Budget, I will continue to support the Secretary in the development of the five year 

offshore leasing plan for 2017-2022. As the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management since October 2011, I have substantial experience with offshore oil and 

gas leasing and, if confirmed, I will continue to provide the Secretary my support 

based on that experience. Moreover, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management 

and Budget serves as one of the principal policy advisors to the Secretary, and discharges the authority of the Secretary for Departmental management, budget and 

coordination activities that also are relevant to the offshore planning process. 

Question 15. Are you actively working on the five year plan right now? 

Answer. The 2017-2022 Five Year Program planning process will begin in 2014. 

The development of the Five Year Program typically takes two and a half years. 

Question 16. You have said previously that the delays in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Atlantic seismic will not hinder the ability for the 

Department to include the Atlantic in the next five year plan. Is that still the case 

and if so is the Atlantic being considered during the current work on the next five 

year plan? 

Answer. Finalizing the PEIS is a high priority for the Department and BOEM. 

As discussed in the current Five Year Program for 2012-2017, responsible acquisition of modern seismic information about the size and location of potential oil and 

gas resources is key to informing future decisions about possible leasing in the Mid 

and South Atlantic. However, it is not necessary to have such data in hand at this 

stage in determining whether to include these areas for scoping as an initial step 

in the process for preparing the next Five Year Program, which will begin in 2014. 

We will use the scoping process to identify issues that should be analyzed as we 

prepare the program. 

65 

Question 17. As you know the PEIS has suffered from many delays. Can you commit that the Department will finalize the PEIS in January 2014 as scheduled? 

Answer. BOEM was on track to complete the PEIS in early January, but the October government shutdown occurred during a critical period for reviewing and finalizing the PEIS and required the issuance of a stop work order to the contractor 

involved in assisting BOEM in completing the PEIS analysis. While this set the 

process back, BOEM is now working toward the goal of publishing the final PEIS 

by the end of February 2014. 

National Ocean Policy 

Question 18. In December 2010, the Interior Department announced that it was 

revising the Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program to preclude 

through at least 2017 the possibility of development in any areas that did not already have leases. In foreclosing even the possibility of leasing in the Mid and South 

Atlantic and vast majority of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the announcement cited 

the National Ocean Policy Executive Order in part as justification. 

What precise role did the Administration’s new National Ocean Policy play in the 

decision to so significantly restrict the possibility of offshore development through 

2017? 

Answer. Although the current Five Year Program does not schedule any lease 

sales in the Mid or South Atlantic, it sets forth a clear strategy for consideration 

of potential future leasing in those areas based on (1) the responsible acquisition 

of modern seismic data concerning the size and location of potential oil and gas resources, and (2) work to resolve conflicts with existing important uses in these 

areas, including military operations and training. The intersection with the National 

Ocean Policy (NOP) is a recognition that the principles of the NOP complement the 

requirements set forth in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, including encouraging effective information dissemination and active engagement with other Federal 

agencies, such as the U.S. Navy, as well as state, tribal, industry, environmental, 

and other stakeholders, all within the scope of existing authorities. 

Question 19. The National Ocean Policy Executive Order, by incorporating Final 

Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, requires the establishment of nine ‘‘Regional Planning Bodies’’ in every coastal region of the United 

States, tasking these new bodies with the development of ‘‘Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans’’ in each of these regions. An Interior Department document from 2012 

states that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is ‘‘DOI’s lead’’ for Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning, and that Interior Department leads and Bureau members from BOEM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Park Service have been assigned to engage in Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Planning activities in all nine regions. 

What specific activities have BOEM officials been engaging in? How many individuals within BOEM are involved in implementation of the new National Ocean Policy, including Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning? 

Answer. The Ocean-related activities in which BOEM engages are core functions 

in carrying out the mission of the OCS Lands Act and other statutes, including environmental studies; digital mapping of physical, ecological, and cultural information 

on the OCS; and coordination with other federal agencies, states, tribes, and other 

stakeholders. BOEM-sponsored research is needed for management of the OCS and 

also contributes to a balanced understanding of key issues across all major sectors, 

and also provides critical input to National Ocean Policy implementation. 

As the Final Implementation Plan makes clear, the Plan specifies that regional 

stakeholders will determine the scope, scale and content of collaborative marine 

planning, that participation is voluntary, and that regional planning bodies will be 

established only in regions that want them. 

BOEM also is the federal co-lead for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body 

(RPB) and co-chairs the Coordinate and Support implementation group. In addition, 

BOEM is supporting Regional Planning Bodies in regions where there is interest in 

marine planning. 

Approximately six BOEM employees conduct mission-related work under existing 

authorities and their work contributes directly to NOP implementation, and other 

subject experts provide assistance as needed. 

Question 20. The Interior Department has noted that Coastal and Marine Spatial 

Planning ‘‘has emerged as a new paradigm and planning strategy for coordinating 

all marine and coastal activities and facility constructions within the context of a 

national zoning plan.’’ 

The Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement stated that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ‘‘has incorporated the requirements of the National Ocean Policy EO 13547 

66 

into its 5-year Program, which includes CMSP.’’ It also noted that ‘‘[i]t is anticipated 

that the [coastal and marine spatial] plans will serve as an overlay for decisions 

made under existing regulatory mandates,’’ with National Ocean Council-approved 

plans ‘‘assist[ing] the BOEM programmatic EIS process in making informed decisions.’’ 

How will institution of a national zoning plan and a new Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning overlay impact permitting timelines and opportunities to develop offshore oil and gas resources? 

Answer. The intent of the marine planning effort is to help guide resource conservation, security interests, navigation, and economic development by facilitating 

information sharing, fostering collaboration, and improving decision-making about 

accommodating a growing number of uses of ocean resources and space, including, 

among other things, energy development. The products and guidance produced 

through this process will be advisory in nature only, and will not supersede or modify the statutes, policies, and regulations used by BOEM in its programs. They will 

be a part of the information that BOEM considers in its decision-making related to 

offshore leasing and development. 

Question 21. Please explain specifically how BOEM ‘‘has incorporated the requirements of the National Ocean Policy EO 13547 into its 5-year Program, which includes CMSP.’’ 

Answer. As discussed above, the principles of the National Ocean Policy are consistent with BOEM’s planning processes under OCSLA. The Regional Planning Bodies (RPB) described in National Ocean Policy EO 13547 did not exist at the time 

that the current Five Year Program was developed. All four RPBs (Northeast, MidAtlantic, Caribbean, and the Pacific Island) were established earlier this year, and 

these entities are building capacity to support marine planning. Initial discussions 

indicate that marine planning in each region will be informed by regional and local 

drivers and concerns. State, tribal, and federal representatives on the RPB are currently discussing the scope of the marine planning exercise, and are seeking stakeholder input to inform the future course. For future Five Year Programs, the RPBs 

will be given the opportunity to comment on the Program during the stakeholder 

review process. 

Question 22. The recommendations adopted by the National Ocean Policy Executive Order state that effective implementation will require ‘‘clear and easily understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that include enforcement as 

a critical component.’’ In addition, the Executive Order requires federal entities including the Interior Department to implement the policy to the fullest extent possible. At the same time, repeating previous assurances that contradict language incorporated in the Executive Order, the Administration’s recently-released National 

Ocean Policy Final Implementation Plan states that it ‘‘does not create new regulations.’’ 

If confirmed, what if any commitment can you make that the Interior Department 

and its affiliate agencies will not issue any regulations or take any actions having 

a regulatory impact pursuant to the National Ocean Policy, including Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning? 

Answer. The Policy does not impose or require any new regulations now or in the 

future, or alter any existing Federal authorities. I am advised that none of the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan actions in which the Department is involved have any elements that require or contemplate new regulations. While the 

implementation actions should, through increased interagency and federal-state cooperation, generate better and more timely information that can help inform our decisions, new regulations from the Department are not part of the plan to implement 

the Policy. 

Question 23. Among other things, the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan 

calls for National Ocean Council member agencies (of which Interior is a member) 

this year to adopt ecosystem-based management (EBM) ‘‘principles, goals, and performance measures’’ and a related policy statement. In addition, National Ocean 

Council agencies (of which Interior is a member) are to ‘‘[i]ncorporate EBM into Federal agency environmental planning and review processes’’ by 2016. 

What if any work is the Interior Department conducting in furtherance of the new 

ecosystem-based management requirement under the National Ocean Policy? What 

if any such activities have already been completed? Please explain how incorporation of EBM into DOI environmental planning and review processes will impact proposed offshore and onshore energy projects. 

Answer. I am advised that consistent with the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, NOC member agencies, including DOI, are working to establish ‘‘principles, goals, and performance measures’’ and a related policy statement. As these 

actions are not due until 2016, they have not yet been established. Onshore and offVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA
67 

shore energy projects, however, will remain among the important uses that must 

be considered as part of any planning or review process. 

(69) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

APIAHF, 

Washington, DC., December 10, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chair, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 221 Dirksen Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Rhea Suh’s nomination to be the next Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI; 

On behalf of the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF), I 

write this letter in support of Rhea Suh’s nomination as Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior. 

Incorporated in 1986, APIAHF is the oldest and largest health policy organization 

working with Asian American (AA), Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (NHPI) 

communities across the nation and across the Pacific. APIAHF influences policy, 

mobilizes communities, and strengthens programs and organizations to improve the 

health of AAs and NHPIs. With over 30 community-based organizational partners 

in 20 states and territories, APIAHF provides a voice in the nation’s capital for underserved AA and NHPI communities and works towards health equity and health 

justice. 

We applaud the nomination of Rhea Suh to be the next Assistant Secretary for 

Fish and Wildlife and Parks. As the first Asian-American woman to hold this position, we know Rhea will fulfill her duty to protect and preserve the abundance of 

natural beauty in our great country and its territories, while maintaining a narrative inclusive of all the cultures and histories that have contributed to the development of this land. APIAHF is confident that Rhea will continue to strive for a 

healthy natural environment for all people to enjoy, and for generations to come. 

Ms. Suh has proven her passion for connecting underserved communities to our 

nation’s parks. She has worked hard to strengthen the ‘‘Youth in the Great Outdoors’’ program, which provides thousands of disadvantaged youth the opportunity 

to work on natural and cultural resource conservation and learn about America’s 

wildlife, public lands, culture and heritage. With a natural landscape as diverse as 

ours, it is comforting to know the Department of Interior has a nominee who values 

youth leadership development as highly as Rhea Suh. 

In addition to her many professional accomplishments and qualifications, her confirmation would add much needed diversity in the senior levels of government, and 

to the Department of Interior in particular. 

As such, we encourage the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to 

confirm Rhea Suh expeditiously and without delay. 

STATEMENT OF JOBIE M. K. MASAGATANI, CHAIRMAN, HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION, 

HONOLULU, HAWAII

Aloha Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources. Thank you for this 

opportunity to provide this testimony in support of President Obama’s nomination 

of Assistant Secretary Rhea S. Suh. 

In her current position as Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget 

of the Department of the Interior, Ms. Suh is charged with exercising the responVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:18 Jan 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\86264.TXT WANDA
70 

sibilities of the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Hawaiian Home Lands 

Recovery Act (P.L. 104-42). These responsibilities include advancing the interests of 

the beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, and assisting the beneficiaries and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in obtaining assistance from 

Federal programs that promote homesteading opportunities, economic self-sufficiency, and social well-being of the beneficiaries. To this end, Assistant Secretary 

Suh’s open and collaborative style has helped to bring clarity to longstanding issues 

between our two agencies. In short, Assistant Secretary Suh’s work with us has improved and advanced our relationship and consequently has helped our program and 

the families our program serves. 

In closing, we appreciate her leadership, support, and attention to our issues. 

Based on our experience and working relationship, we are confident she will continue to be an asset to the Department of the Interior as she oversees Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. We support this nomination and we ask your committee’s favorable consideration. Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much). 

PT CAPITAL, 

Anchorage, AK, December 11, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Senate Energy Committee, 221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington 

DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Senate Energy Committee, 709 Hart Senate Bldg., Washington 

DC. 

Re: Confirmation of Tommy P. Beaudreau 

DEAR CHAIRMAN: 

I write to support the confirmation of Tommy P. Beaudreau as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the Department of the Interior. Since 

his arrival at the Department, Tommy has demonstrated his ability to understand 

and solve complex issues. Those who work with him appreciate his thoughtful approach. 

Tommy’s presence is felt across our nation. My testimony, however, is based upon 

his work in the American Arctic. In short, Tommy has used his talent and exerted 

his influence to improve the lives of Arctic residents. 

Tommy was key to restructuring the Department’s approach to leasing, permitting and regulating offshore oil and gas. The process of restructuring the former 

Mineral Management Services has had a profound and positive impact on how the 

federal government conducts business in the Arctic. Tommy was an important part 

of the team that changed the system and the culture. As a result DOI has restored 

the confidence of those living in the region. After dramatic failures, local residents 

are more optimistic that the federal government can protect their interests through 

a high quality permitting and regulatory system. 

Tommy has been a strong advocate for improving Arctic standards. Fundamental 

to improving the chances of successful offshore oil and gas operations is the willingness of the government to reach out to stakeholders to identify best standards. The 

process is cumbersome and requires balancing competing visions of success, a process in which Tommy has excelled. By insisting on higher standards, Tommy has improved the chances of successful offshore operations in the Arctic Ocean. 

As you know, Arctic coastal communities are at once excited and fearful of the 

changes occurring around them. Tommy has demonstrated a willingness to travel 

great distances to talk with indigenous residents. He has traveled to the Arctic on 

several occasions, including a multi community visit in the middle of our long Arctic 

winter. While in the communities, he has listened, learned and responded as a 

statesman. Over time Tommy has become a welcomed guest in the Arctic communities. 

The Department should take great pride in Tommy’s work in the Arctic. It would 

be difficult to replicate Tommy’s work or his reputation as an Arctic problem solver. 

I give my highest recommendation to Tommy P. Beaudreau for Assistant Secretary 

and hope that he is confirmed quickly. 

Sincerely, 

EDWARD S. ITTA. 

71 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, 

Arlington, VA, November 13, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate 

Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI: 

On behalf of The Nature Conservancy, we are writing in support of the nomination of Ms. Rhea S. Suh for the position of Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior, with lead responsibility for overseeing 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service. 

Since 2009, Ms. Suh has been at the helm of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s 

Policy, Management and Budget Office, where she has overseen Department-wide 

administrative policies and practices and implemented several major Departmental 

initiatives focusing on land conservation, sustainability, diversity and youth engagement and employment. Ms. Suh has spent much of her career identifying opportunities for improving the transparency and efficiency of on-the-ground conservation and 

ensuring that a broader constituency is engaged in impactful ways in conservation 

delivery mechanisms. In her current role, Ms. Suh has emphasized the need for federal funding sources such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be targeted 

toward collaborative, community-based initiatives, while also continuing to address 

existing needs. She has also focused on broadening the constituency for conservation 

to include both rural and urban communities, as well as approaching environmental 

issues in a bipartisan and non-controversial way. These transformative initiatives 

at the Department under her leadership, combined with her extensive experience 

working with Congress and holding roles within both the conservation and foundation fields during her professional career, position Ms. Suh as an ideal candidate 

for the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks position. 

Additionally, Ms. Suh has been a driving force at the Department of the Interior 

for ensuring internal and external accountability. As the Chief Financial Officer and 

Chief Human Capital Officer for the Department, Ms. Suh has been responsible for 

implementing the Budget Control Act (BCA) and associated sequestration cuts for 

all of agencies of the Department of the Interior. She has closely coordinated these 

efforts with Capitol Hill, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Administration. The BCA budget implementation has been executed seamlessly at the Department, exemplifying the professionalism and leadership of Ms. Suh. 

The Conservancy requests the Committee’s consideration of Ms. Rhea S. Suh as 

a strong and qualified candidate for the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks position. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

LYNN SCARLETT, 

Managing Director for Public Policy. 

KAMERAN L. ONLEY, 

Acting Director, U.S. Government Relations. 

Æ