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

53–621 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 111–160 

MCNUTT AND MAJUMDAR NOMINATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TO

CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, AND ARUN 

MAJUMDAR, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH 

PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OCTOBER 8, 2009 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

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

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 4 

Farr, Hon. Sam, U.S. Representative From California ........................................ 5 

McNutt, Marcia K., Ph.D., to be Director of the United States Geological 

Society, Department of the Interior .................................................................... 8 

Majumdar, Arun, Ph.D., to be Director of the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency-Energy, Department of Energy .............................................................. 11 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 23 

(1) 

MCNUTT AND MAJUMDAR NOMINATIONS 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m., in room 

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

chairman, presiding. 

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

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. Let us go ahead with our hearing on Dr. McNutt 

and Dr. Majumdar. Let me make a short statement about the two 

of them and proceed with that. 

Dr. Marcia McNutt, has been nominated to be the Director of the 

Geological Survey. This is one of the Federal Government’s oldest 

scientific bodies, the principal source of scientific information about 

our Nation’s land, minerals, and water resources, the second oldest 

office that is under this committee’s jurisdiction. 

Dr. Arun Majumdar has been nominated to be the Director of the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Department of Energy, 

ARPA–E as it is known. It was established by the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 to overcome technological barriers to the development 

of advanced energy technologies, but the director’s post was left unfilled by the previous administration. If confirmed, Mr. Majumdar 

will be its first director. 

Both Dr. McNutt and Dr. Majumdar are extremely well qualified 

for the positions to which the President has nominated them. Dr. 

McNutt is currently the President and Chief Executive Officer of 

the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and Professor of 

Marine Geophysics at both Stanford University and the University 

of California at Santa Cruz. Since earning her doctorate in earth 

sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Dr. McNutt 

has also taught geophysics at MIT, authored 90 scientific papers, 

has been repeatedly recognized for her scientific achievements. If 

confirmed, she will be the first woman to head the USGS in its 

130-year history. 

Dr. Majumdar is currently the Associate Laboratory Director for 

Energy and Environment at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a professor of mechanical engineering and material 

science and engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. 

Like Dr. McNutt, Dr. Majumdar is a highly distinguished research scientist. In addition, he has been an entrepreneur, has advised startup companies and venture capital firms in Silicon Val-
2 

1 APRA-E Funding Opportunity Announcement # DE-FOA-0000065. 

ley. He is also an authority on energy efficiency, renewable energy, 

and energy storage. 

I strongly support both nominees. I am pleased to welcome them 

to our committee this morning. 

Let me recognize Senator Murkowski for any statement she 

would like to make. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski and congratulations 

to both nominees for your selection to serve within the Obama Administration 

I’m extremely impressed with the experience both of you have in your respected 

areas of science, and I hope you maintain your commitment to the advancement of 

science from an objective viewpoint. 

I support the goals you both have laid out in your written testimony. I don’t think 

anyone would argue with the importance of studying the submarine areas off the 

coast of the United States to better understand their resource potential, or providing 

scientific and engineering innovations to advance energy efficiency and security. 

But I ask that when you pursue these objectives, you do so from an unbiased objective approach that takes into account all scientific studies absent political 

ideologies, and hopefully therefore, moving our nation towards the goal of greater 

energy independence. 

I believe, through balanced policy, we can achieve this goal. What I don’t believe, 

is that we can achieve this goal by promulgating national carbon emission regulation, regulation which I believe will only further cripple our national economy without any positive impact on global temperature reduction. 

Before I close, I wanted to address one issue I have with the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency-Energy at the DOE. Specifically, I was troubled that the Funding 

Opportunity Announcement for this program limits participation eligibility to U.S. 

operations of companies’ headquartered abroad. Nationwide, these companies employ over 5 million Americans including 46,500 Kansans. There are no other programs at DOE that define these US companies as ‘‘foreign entities’’ and there is 

nothing in either applicable law or regulation that would require these restrictions. 

Many of these companies are longtime partners with the DOE and have expertise 

in this area that can help advance U.S. energy goals. As such, allowing their participation in ARPA-E, very much like DOE successfully does in other programs, could 

positively impact future U.S. employment while contributing to the success of the 

program. I know that officials at the Department have had discussions with folks 

on this issue and I appreciate the Secretary’s acknowledgement of those concerns 

and a commitment to consider the issue and look to modify future requirements. I 

would ask that the exchange of letters regarding this issue, and my full statement, 

be entered into the record. In addition, I would like your assurance, Mr. Majumar, 

that the policy will be carefully reviewed, and hopefully changed, in light of these 

considerations. 

Thank you again for testifying today, and I look forward to working with both of 

you in the future. 

ATTACHMENTS.—EXCHANGE OF LETTERS FROM SENATOR BROWNBACK

ORGANIZATION FOR INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT, 

May 26, 2009. 

Hon. STEVEN CHU, 

Secretary of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY CHU: On behalf of the Organization for International Investment (OFII) and the more than 5 million American workers employed here by U.S. 

subsidiaries of foreign-based multinationals, I write to express concern about participation restrictions placed on these companies in a recent ARPA-E Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).1 This discriminatory treatment of certain U.S. companies is not mandated by applicable law or regulation. Restricting the ability of 

these companies and their American workers to fully participate in the program and 

compete for program funds undermines the effectiveness of the program, calls into 

question the U.S. commitment to a nondiscriminatory environment for foreign in-
3 

2The FOA definition of a ‘‘foreign entity’’ is overly broad and includes any entity that is ‘‘directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a foreign company or government.’’ 

vestment, and invites similar protectionist retribution from other countries. We urge 

you to reconsider these restrictions and issue an amendment to the FOA that removes these restrictions and allows all U.S.-domiciled companies, regardless of ultimate ownership, to compete on a level playing field for available ARPAE funds. Representatives of our member companies would be pleased to meet with you and your 

staff to provide further information on how their participation has benefited similar 

programs. 

By way of further background, OFII is a business association representing the 

U.S. operations of many of the world’s largest international companies. These operations directly employ more than 5 million Americans here in the United States and 

support an annual U.S. payroll of over $364 billion. As evidenced by the attached 

membership list, many OFII members are household name companies with historic 

and substantial U.S. operations. Many are significant partners of your Department, 

and will be adversely affected by these new provisions. 

The restrictions included in the ARPA-E FOA would limit the ability of numerous 

U.S.-incorporated companies to participate fully in this important program. Two restrictions are particularly troublesome. First, the FOA prohibits a foreign entity2

from serving as the lead of a team competing for ARPA-E funds. Second, the FOA 

requires that ‘‘no more than 25% of the ARPA-E funds may be expended by the combination of all foreign entities on the project . . . regardless of whether the work 

is performed in the United States or a foreign location.’’ These restrictions are both 

surprising and onerous because, to the extent it is important that ARPA-E funded 

activities take place within the United States, the existing FOA requirement that 

90% of the work be performed on U.S. soil would accomplish that goal. 

As currently drafted, the restrictions on the participation of ‘‘foreign entities’’ will 

severely limit the ability of such significant DOE partners as Saint-Gobain, BASF, 

Philips Electronics, and Bosch from participating in the program. These companies 

employ thousands of American workers who work in research, production and office 

facilities throughout the Untied States. As such, the restrictions discriminate in 

favor of some U.S. companies and workers while disadvantaging other U.S. companies and workers. OFII Member Companies can make important contributions to 

the ARPA-E program and their participation would be of significant benefit to the 

Department and to the United States. Respectfully, restrictions that limit in any 

material way their ability to participate undermine the effectiveness of the program, 

make no economic sense, and will deprive U.S. taxpayers of the full value of their 

investment. 

We would further note that these restrictions are not legally required. We understand that the restrictions were adopted by Departmental program officials believing they were ‘‘in the spirit’’ of the Buy America provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We are very concerned that the program officials did not 

appreciate the significantly adverse and public impact of these restrictions on U.S. 

companies, on the effectiveness of the ARPA-E program, and on U.S. trade policy 

more generally. 

Setting aside any questions the restrictions raise under U.S. international agreements, they are also inconsistent with the longstanding and explicit U.S. policy to 

encourage foreign investment in the United States and accord nondiscriminatory 

treatment. The FOA invites discrimination against U.S. companies abroad, which is 

exactly what President Obama and the other G20 Leaders pledged to avoid through 

their commitment to ‘‘promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism.’’ 

Finally, the restrictions currently set forth in the FOA are a disturbing example 

of what can happen when government crafts overtly protectionist policies. The atmosphere created by the ‘‘Buy America’’ provisions has encouraged officials to discriminate believing such discrimination is consistent with what appears to be prevailing policy. This is the very concern that we, along with dozens of companies and 

other trade associations, raised in our February 4th letter to the President opposing 

the Buy America provisions. In that letter, we warned that such a provision would 

‘‘send the wrong message at the worst possible time.’’ Our fear was that the ‘‘wrong’’ 

message would be received by other countries. It is now clear that the wrong message was heard by U.S. officials as well. 

We strongly urge you to remove these unprecedented and unwarranted restrictions from the ARPA-E funding opportunity announcement, and to ensure that no 
4 

similar restrictions are included in future FOAs for the ARPA-E program or other 

DOE programs. 

Sincerely, 

NANCY MCLERNON, 

President & CEO. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 

Washington, DC, July 29, 2009. 

Ms. Nancy Mclernon, 

President and CEO, Organization for International Investment, 1225 Nineteenth 

Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. MCLERNON: Thank you for your May 26, 2009, letter concerning foreign 

participation and funding under the first Funding Opportunity Announcement 

(FOA) issued by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). 

You correctly note that the FOA permits participation by foreign entities and allows substantial funding of activities by foreign entities. However, you question the 

requirement that lead organizations be U.S. entities as well as the limitation on the 

percentage of ARPA-E funds that may be received by foreign entities participating 

in a selected project. 

The first ARPA-E FOA provisions sought to strike a thoughtful balance on the 

issue of foreign participation, permitting a substantial role for foreign entities with 

the resources and capabilities to participate in the important transformational goals 

of ARPA-E, while meeting the stipulations of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The second ARPA-E FOA will be modified based on other factors, and we 

will coordinate this with the Department of Commerce and the Office of the United 

States Trade Representative (USTR). 

I believe that transformational results in energy research can be achieved when 

technology leaders and researchers from all over the world commit themselves to 

innovation. By supporting a global interest in collaborative energy research and innovations in energy technologies I hope to address better the energy, economic, and 

climate needs shared by all countries. 

Again, thank you for your interest in this important program. If you have any 

questions or require additional information, please contact me or Shane Kosinski, 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, at (202) 287-1057. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN CHU, 

Secretary. 

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

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

hearing this morning and I want to thank our nominees for their 

willingness to serve. 

You have noted the distinguished history within the USGS. Ms. 

McNutt will have 130 years of USGS history to deal with, while 

Mr. Majumdar has the luxury and also the challenge of being nominated to head an agency with almost no history to defend. So I do 

not know which is better here. 

Certainly on its face, the mission of the USGS is quite straightforward, to provide reliable scientific information about our Nation’s resources. Good and complete information about the extent 

and the location of our Nation’s natural resources is clearly essential and I believe the foundation of wise decisions regarding energy 

and land use policy. USGS also serves as a place where we help 

to educate Americans as to what our resources are and what they 

are not. 

I look forward to your responses to questions, Ms. McNutt. I do 

hope that you commit to providing the information that will allow 

us to do just that: understand where our resources are and where 

they may not be. 
5 

I would also like to recognize the importance of another part of 

the USGS mission. Alaska, as you know, is part of this Pacific Rim 

of Fire, which is very geologically active. It is exposed on nearly a 

daily basis to threats from volcanoes and earthquakes and 

tsunamis. We have one volcano down on the chain that is picking 

up in activity. We had our major airport in the State, as well as 

other airports, shut down in March and April. It kept my kids from 

returning home from spring break, while they were skiing out 

there. It really ruined their day, I am sure. 

But I think we recognize that this geologic activity is not something that is remote and just happens where there is no impact to 

commerce and to human activity. It is incredibly important that 

within USGS they help to work with us to predict and minimize 

the risk to people in the State of Alaska. I look forward to discussing these issues with you and so many others. 

As far as the responsibilities within the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency, I think Senator Bond made the comment that food 

does not come from the back of a grocery store, and as such, we 

know that water does not originate from the faucet and copper wire 

does not originate from some endless spool in the hardware store. 

Gasoline does not originate from the filling station. But I think 

there are some who believe that there is this immaculate conception for energy. It just happens, that there is some magical technology that is going to appear overnight and just transform our Nation’s energy use. 

That in one sense, Mr. Majumdar, is your job. I hope that you 

are successful in this, but hope is not much to build a prosperous 

economy on. While we wait for that today, we have to focus clearly 

on how we best assess, how we manage and how we produce the 

resources that will stabilize and advance our economy today and 

for some time into the future. I will look forward to your comments 

as well. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am ready to go. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Let me ask the two nominees to please come forward to the witness table. Representative Farr, please have a chair. Let us hear 

first from Representative Farr, who is here to introduce Dr. 

McNutt and who represents an area in California that she hails 

from, as I understand it. We are very glad to have you before the 

committee. Go ahead, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am, indeed, 

honored to be before your committee and Ranking Member Murkowski and my friend, Senator Udall, and Senator Risch. I really 

appreciate the opportunity. I am really honored to be able to introduce to you Dr. McNutt, a scientist of exceptionally high caliber, 

and commend her to you as President Obama’s nominee to head 

the USGS. 

Of course, it is bittersweet for me because Dr. McNutt is leaving 

my district where she has had an important and a lasting impact 

as a scientist, as a leader, as a member of our community. 
6 

Dr. McNutt first arrived in Monterey more than a decade ago 

from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to take charge of 

the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, better known locally as MBARI. This was an institute founded by the late David 

Packard. 

Her arrival coincided with the Year of the Ocean, and Dr. 

McNutt immediately joined in and became a leader in the planning 

of this high-profile event, in which I was heavily involved. That 

was the event in which President Clinton and the First Lady visited and had a White House conference on the oceans in Monterey. 

Out of this grew a multi-institutional cooperative alliance that 

she chaired for many years called the Monterey Bay Crescent 

Ocean Research Consortium. The consortium continues to this day 

and is outstanding for its breadth and density of its oceanographic 

and scientific prowess, unrivaled anywhere in the world. 

Taken together, these activities are illustrative not just of Dr. 

McNutt’s initiative and leadership, but also of her pioneering vision. 

I point this out because it is such a clear example of Dr. 

McNutt’s farsighted thinking and of how her collaborative style 

and commitment to working with other institutions have built such 

enduring programs and productive relationships. 

I would like to also mention that Dr. McNutt is one of the few 

women to have achieved membership in all three honorary academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy 

of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. 

Thank you for allowing me the tremendous honor to introduce 

you to Dr. McNutt, and with her today is her daughter Meredith 

and daughter Dana. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

Thank you Chairman Bingaman and members of the Committee for granting me 

the opportunity to speak to you here today: it is a great privilege. It is also a great 

privilege and a sincere pleasure to introduce Dr. Marcia McNutt, a scientist of exceptionally high caliber, and to commend her to you as President Obama’s nominee 

to head the United States Geological Survey. Of course this is a bittersweet moment 

for me because it means that Dr. McNutt will be leaving my district, where she has 

had an important and a lasting impact as a scientist, as a leader and as a member 

of our community. 

Dr. McNutt first arrived in Monterey more than a decade ago from the prestigious 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology to take charge of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, better known as MBARI. Of course all of the ocean leaders 

in the Central Coast were keenly interested in what direction she might take this, 

then young, institution; it had so much promise but had, to date, been somewhat 

insular from the other oceanographic institutions in the area. Her arrival coincided 

with the Year of the Ocean. Dr. McNutt immediate joined in and became a leader 

in the planning for this high-profile event, in which I was also heavily involved. 

Out of this grew an inter-institutional cooperative alliance that she chaired for 

many years, called the Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium, or 

MBCORC. The existence of MBCORC provided the nucleus for one of the first successful regional ocean observing systems, CeNCOOS, which is hosted at MBARI. 

Taken together, these activities are illustrative not just of Dr. McNutt’s initiative 

and leadership, but also of her pioneering vision. The Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean 

Research Consortium continues to this day and is astounding for the breadth and 

density of its oceanographic and scientific prowess, unrivaled anywhere else in the 

world. 

I point this out because it is such a clear example of Dr. McNutt’s far sighted 

thinking and of how her collaborative style and commitment to working with other 

institutions have built such enduring programs and productive relationships. I 
7 

would also like to mention that Dr. McNutt is one of the very few women to have 

earned what is the academic equivalent of the ‘‘triple crown:’’ membership in all 

three honorary academies: The National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. 

Thank you again for allowing me the tremendous honor to introduce to you, Dr. 

Marcia McNutt. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for being here to make the introduction. We appreciate it very much. We appreciate you taking time 

out of your busy schedule. 

Let me just go through the protocol that we do with all nominees. 

We would excuse you, Representative Farr. If you need to get 

back to the House, we certainly understand that. 

The rules of our committee that apply to all nominees require 

they be sworn in connection with their testimony. So let me just 

ask the two nominees if they would please stand and raise your 

right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Ms. MCNUTT. I do. 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated. 

Before you begin your statements, let me ask three questions 

that we address to each nominee that comes before this committee. 

First, will you be available to appear before this committee and 

other congressional committees to represent departmental positions 

and to respond to issues of concern to the Congress? 

Dr. McNutt? 

Ms. MCNUTT. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Majumdar? 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. I will. 

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

conflict of interest or create the appearance of such a conflict 

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

been nominated by the President? 

Dr. McNutt? 

Ms. MCNUTT. My investments, personal holdings, and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Majumdar? 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. My investments, personal holdings, and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken appropriate actions to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my knowledge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both. 

Our third and final question is, are you involved or do you have 

any assets that are held in a blind trust? 

Dr. McNutt? 

Ms. MCNUTT. No. 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. No. 
8 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, thank you both very much. 

At this point, if either of you have a desire to introduce family 

members, we welcome that. Dr. McNutt, I know your daughters are 

here. If you would like to introduce them or anyone else, go ahead. 

Ms. MCNUTT. Yes, Senator. I would like to introduce two of my 

daughters who took the red-eye to be with us this morning. First 

is my daughter Meredith who is a graduate student at Berkeley. 

She is studying green real estate development at the Haas School 

of Business. Next to her is my daughter Dana who works in Silicon 

Valley for a company in IT security, and she is also obtaining a 

graduate degree at the Engineering School at Santa Clara University. 

Dana’s identical twin sister Ashley graduated from Stanford in 

philosophy and political science, but she is Miss Rodeo California, 

and her royal duties have kept her in California this week. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We can certainly understand that. That is a 

higher calling than anything we are doing around here. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Majumdar, why do you not go ahead, if you 

would like to introduce family members. 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. Sure. Let me introduce my wife of 19 years, Dr. 

Aruna Joshi, and our two daughters Shalini and Anjali. Shalini is 

taking her SAT exams this Saturday, so I wish her the best of luck. 

My 76-year-old mother sends her regrets to you that she could not 

be here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are sorry she could not be, but we welcome 

those who are here, the families of both nominees. 

At this point, let me just have each of you give any opening 

statement that you would like to give and then we will have a few 

questions. 

Dr. McNutt, why don’t you go ahead first? 

STATEMENT OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PH.D., TO BE DIRECTOR 

OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. MCNUTT. Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, Senator 

Udall, I am honored to come before you as the President’s nominee 

for Director of the U.S. Geological Survey. You have my prepared 

statement. Time is short. Therefore, I will depart from those remarks and just speak from the heart. 

I would argue that the USGS is the Nation’s premier science 

agency because it provides unbiased data and assessments on resources critical to the very fabric of our daily lives, such as water 

and energy. The USGS helps keep us safe from natural hazards 

and provides essential scientific information about the quality of 

our environment and how it is changing. 

I know that you take very seriously the task of confirming just 

the right person to direct this organization, and I need to convince 

you that I am that person. 

First, I am a good scientist certified by the National Academy. 

Science organizations need science leadership. Good scientists 

know that it is not just about finding the right answers. It is about 

knowing what questions to ask in the first place. 
9 

Second, I am a leader. I was president of the American Geophysical Union, the largest international body of geoscience professionals in the world, including hydrologists, atmospheric scientists, 

oceanographers, geologists, and geobiologists. 

Third, I am a seasoned administrator, having run a research institution for 12 years now. I understand the importance of strategic 

planning, audit, HR policies and procedures, regular maintenance 

from the perspective of someone who has been responsible for all 

of those functions. 

Fourth, I am familiar with the culture of the USGS having been 

a former employee. A common cause of failure of leaders who are 

brought in from the outside to head organizations is inability to assimilate the culture of the new organization. I will be right at home 

at the USGS. 

Fifth, I am a strong believer in team building. My current institution has thrived on destroying conventional boundaries between 

disciplines and on building uncommon partnerships. The USGS 

and its many partners succeed through team work. 

Finally, in closing, public service is a tradition in my family. My 

father was a freshman at Harvard when the Japanese attacked 

Pearl Harbor. He lied about his age and waived a heart murmur 

to enlist in the infantry. I do not think that my father considered 

the contributions he could make to his country were any more important at that time than the contributions I hope I can make. I 

believe that the Nation’s need for timely information on natural 

hazards, environmental and climate change, and water, energy, biological, and other natural hazards has never been greater. 

After my father landed at the beaches of Normandy and fought 

his way to Berlin, he was the youngest 2nd lieutenant in the U.S. 

Army, younger than my daughters today. He earned the Silver 

Star, the Bronze Star, and two Purple Hearts. I could only dream 

that my contributions to my country would approach those of my 

father. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the challenge, 

should you honor me with this confirmation. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McNutt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PH.D., TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, distinguished members of the Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee, I am honored to come before you as President 

Obama’s nominee for Director of the US Geological Survey. I am excited about this 

opportunity to join Secretary Salazar’s team at the Department of the Interior, especially now, when the nation’s need for timely information on natural hazards, environmental and climate change, and water, energy, biological, and other natural resources has never been greater. 

My inspiration for dedicating my life to the Earth sciences comes from having 

lived in some of the most beautiful landscapes that America has to offer: the 10,000 

lakes of Minnesota, the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, the sandy beaches of La Jolla 

and Cape Cod, and now John Steinbeck’s Pastures of Heaven above Monterey Bay. 

I always knew I wanted to be a scientist, but even when I was young I could never 

picture myself in a lab coat with a test tube. 

I majored in Physics at Colorado College, but my favorite college course was Introduction to Geology, taught by Professor John Lewis. Colorado College uses the block 

plan in which students only take one course at a time for a month. Introduction to 

Geology is two blocks long. So my first two months at college were spent with Doc 

Lewis and about 19 other students scrambling around the Front Range with our 

back packs and sleeping bags trying to piece together the geologic history of the 
10 

Southern Rockies from first principles. We never cracked a book the entire time. I 

was drawn to the grandeur of the Earth sciences and awed by the time and space 

scales upon which Earth processes played out. No lab coat. No test tube. Science 

outside! 

Once I arrived at graduate school at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, I 

switched fields from Physical Oceanography to Marine Geophysics because plate tectonics was revolutionizing the geosciences. With the vast majority of plate boundaries under the ocean, marine geophysicists would be the ones to put the pieces of 

the theory together. Entering the field at that time was like becoming a biologist 

right after Darwin wrote Origin of the Species or becoming a physicist right after 

Einstein wrote the Special Theory of Relativity. Old papers, textbooks, and theories 

were suddenly rendered irrelevant, such that there was no large body of prior 

knowledge to be absorbed. Observations had to be reinterpreted within the context 

of the new framework. Major marine expeditions were led, and often staffed entirely, by my fellow graduate students and myself, because many of the more senior 

practitioners in the field were too slow to embrace the new paradigm. It was a 

heady time filled with the excitement of scientific discovery. Science at sea! 

I credit the US Geological Survey for giving me my first ‘‘real’’ job after receiving 

my PhD. I spent three wonderful years in the Office of Earthquake Studies in Menlo 

Park, California, calibrating the strength of plates on time scales relevant to the 

earthquake generation process. Working on the earthquake problem, in California, 

gave me my first taste of what it was like to be involved in research of interest to 

the general public, not just my fellow scientists. This was science people use! I also 

benefitted from this time at the GS in that I can still appreciate the culture of the 

organization from the viewpoint of someone who has spent time ‘‘down in the 

trenches,’’ and yet the intervening years away allow me to bring a fresh perspective 

to the organization. 

The majority of my career has been spent at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I served on the faculty in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and 

Planetary Sciences for 15 years, and was eventually awarded an endowed chair. I 

enjoyed being surrounded every day by some of the brightest young minds in the 

country, engaging them in forefront research problems, and watching them grow intellectually each day. My favorite part about MIT was serving as a freshman advisor 

and hearing the personal stories of the students each September. Many represented 

the first generation in their families to attend college. Whether they had come from 

the barrios of San Antonio or the plains of North Dakota, the one thing they shared 

was the fact that they had earned their place in the MIT freshman class by their 

own effort. And back home, an entire community was cheering them on. 

My research took me and my students all over the planet: to the islands of French 

Polynesia, the Tibet Plateau, Iceland, Siberia, and Antarctica. At MIT I learned how 

to do what really counts, how to find, measure, and nurture excellence, and to become ridiculously efficient at multi-tasking. Equally importantly, I developed a complete intolerance for sloppy science and anything but the highest ethical standards. 

My most recent posting for the last 12 years has been as the President and CEO 

of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, better known as MBARI. MBARI 

is an oceanographic research institution founded by David Packard and privately 

funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. With its emphasis on peer relationships between scientists and engineers and encouragement of high-risk research and technology development, MBARI is best described as a ‘‘NASA for the 

oceans,’’ albeit at a smaller budget scale. This latest position has given me ample 

experience in leadership, management, and administration, as well as considerable 

opportunity to familiarize myself with issues and opportunities in environmental 

chemistry and biology. 

In looking back at my time at MBARI, I believe I have left a mark on several 

aspects of institute operations. First, teamwork. Across science, engineering, marine 

operations, outreach programs, and administrative areas, everyone functions as a 

well-oiled team. To a person, everyone understands that the reason we exist is to 

support the research mission and to make it progress smoothly and flawlessly. Second, our mission. I helped redirect MBARI from a broadly constituted portfolio in 

basic research to a more targeted set of socially relevant topics such as ocean acidification, eutrophication, methane hydrates, and harmful algal blooms, nearly a decade before they became common buzzwords. Finally, the staff. I am proud of the 

people I have hired, their work ethic, and their commitment to Packard’s founding 

vision of how a different kind of institution can truly make a difference. 

You may all be wondering why I would consider leaving such a scientific paradise 

and relocating from my beloved Pastures of Heaven at this time. This nation is facing important decisions concerning future uses of its precious resources: water, energy, and environment. We are increasingly at economic risk from natural hazards. 
11 

The challenges associated with climate change must be better understood. Submarine areas under US control out to the 200 mile limit are equal to the subaerial 

land area of this great nation, and yet the seabed resources have yet to be explored 

and inventoried. In deciding how best to move forward, our leaders, including members of Congress, the President, and the Secretary of the Interior, need sound, unbiased, scientific advice. Science is not the only factor in decision making, but it needs 

to be one of the factors. The USGS has long-term records and scientific expertise 

that can be used for making good choices based on solid data, and can look into the 

geologic record to determine whether recent conditions are likely to be representative of the future. Now, more than ever before, the nation needs the USGS, and I 

would be proud, if confirmed, to lead this effort. 

So, in summary, these are the skills and qualities I would hope to bring to the 

leadership of the US Geological Survey, if confirmed: 

—The capacity to be inspired by the natural world 

—A love for science outside 

—An appreciation for the culture of the US Geological Survey 

—A history of association with some of the finest research institutions in the 

nation 

—The ability to recognize and nurture excellence 

—High ethical standards 

—An aptitude for leadership 

—Experience in team building 

—A track record for asking the right scientific questions 

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you, and I look forward to this challenge, should you confirm me for this position. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your statement. 

Dr. Majumdar, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF ARUN MAJUMDAR, PH.D., TO BE DIRECTOR OF 

THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. Thank you. Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members of this committee, it is 

my distinct honor and privilege to appear before you today as 

President Obama’s nominee to be the first Director of the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA–E. 

I wish to thank President Obama for nominating me to join his 

administration and Secretary Chu first for inspiring me and many 

others at Berkeley and now for showing his confidence in me. 

Almost a quarter century ago, I came to this country from the 

land of Mahatma Gandhi as a 22-year-old graduate student, hoping 

to receive a doctorate from the best higher education and research 

system in the world. This was a dream that my father had for me. 

He came to this country in 1957 to receive an education in telecommunication and radar and returned to India 2 years later with 

many friendships and a deep admiration for the people of this 

country. In his wildest of dreams, however, I am not sure he could 

have predicted that I would appear before you today. 

In the course of my journey, I have discovered not only the scientific and technological prowess of this great Nation, but also a 

country that opened its arms, welcomed me with warmth, and 

adopted me as one of her own. I am proud to be a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. I am deeply appreciative of 

the opportunity and the freedom that the country has offered me 

and will always be honored to serve in any capacity the country 

asks of me. 

After receiving my Ph.D., in mechanical engineering from the 

University of California at Berkeley, I spent my career in aca-
12 

demia, spanning Arizona State University, University of California 

at Santa Barbara, and finally at Berkeley. I have been very fortunate to work with some of the smartest minds in science and engineering, including many Ph.D.s, post-doctoral fellows, fellow faculty, and industrial scientists and hundreds of undergraduate students. I have been an advisor for both science and engineering at 

the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, for 

PCAST, and for various startup companies and venture capital 

firms in the Bay Area, which is the world’s most vibrant ecosystem 

for technological and business innovation. 

The focus of my work has always been to solve industrial or societal problems and to dig deep into science when faced with difficult 

technical challenges. I have risked delving into new fields of research where I had no background, and I have thrived on quickly 

learning the landscape and opening new paths where previously 

none existed. For these contributions, I was elected as one of the 

youngest members to the National Academy of Engineering, which 

is the Nation’s highest honor in engineering. I have served as the 

director of several institutes in both academia and professional organizations and have recently led the energy efficiency innovation 

efforts at Berkeley Labs. In February of this year, I testified before 

this committee on how to reduce energy consumption in buildings. 

If confirmed, I will bring this breadth and depth of knowledge in 

science, engineering, and management of technological innovations 

to lead ARPA–E from its genesis. 

One of the models for ARPA–E is DARPA, which was created in 

1958 in response to the launch of Sputnik. This committee and others were instrumental in authorizing ARPA-E and pointing it to 

address three Sputniks of our generation: energy independence and 

security, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and American 

competitiveness in the global energy and environment market. 

The goal of ARPA–E is to identify and anticipate technological 

barriers and gaps that impede progress toward these objectives and 

to rapidly innovate to overcome or circumvent them. ARPA–E will 

complement existing R&D programs by drawing upon the scientific 

discoveries and combining them with new engineering approaches 

to create innovative solutions for the market. Speed, calculated 

risks, internal competition, and agility will be the keys to the technological innovations that mark our success. Our Nation’s history 

is replete with examples of pioneers and entrepreneurs who took 

risks, often failed initially, quickly learned from their failures, competed against each other, and innovated in both technology and 

business to create the largest industrial base the world has ever 

seen. If confirmed, I will lead ARPA–E to tap into this truly American ethos and identify and support the pioneers of the future. 

I believe that the Nation that creates an economy based on reduced energy consumption, clean energy supply, and a smart energy infrastructure will lead the global economy of the 21st century. With the best R&D infrastructure in the world and a thriving 

innovation ecosystem in business and entrepreneurship, we have 

all the ingredients for success and we have made a great start. 

ARPA–E can play a critical role in accelerating progress toward 

these goals. The program has taken its first steps this year, and 

if confirmed, I pledge to use all my knowledge, expertise, and expe-
13 

rience to help grow ARPA–E into a robust engine of American innovation in energy and environment. 

It is a privilege and an honor to testify before you today, and I 

look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Majumdar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARUN MAJUMDAR, PH.D., TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members 

of this committee, it is my distinct honor and privilege to appear before you today 

as President Obama’s nominee to be the first Director of the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency—Energy or ARPA-E. 

I wish to thank President Obama for nominating me to join his administration, 

and Secretary Chu, first for inspiring me and many others at Berkeley, and now 

for showing his confidence in me. 

Please allow me to introduce my wife of 19 years, Dr. Aruna Joshi, and our two 

daughters, Shalini and Anjali. My 76-year old mother sends her regrets to you that 

she could not be here today. 

Almost a quarter century ago, I came to this country from the land of Mahatma 

Gandhi as a 22-year old graduate student, hoping to receive a doctorate from the 

best higher education and research system in the world. This was a dream that my 

father had for me. He came to this country in 1957 to receive an education in telecommunication and radar, and returned to India two years later with many friendships and a deep admiration for the people of this country. In the wildest of dreams, 

however, I am not sure he could have predicted that I would appear before you 

today. 

In the course of my journey, I have discovered not only the scientific and technological prowess of this great nation, but also a country that opened its arms, welcomed me warmly, and adopted me as one of her own. I am proud to be a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity and the freedom that the country has offered me, and will always be honored 

to serve in any capacity the country asks of me. 

After receiving my PhD in Mechanical Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, I spent my career in academia, spanning Arizona State University, 

University of California, Santa Barbara and finally at Berkeley. I have been very 

fortunate to work with some of the smartest minds in science and engineering, including many PhDs, post-doctoral fellows, other faculty and industrial scientists, 

and hundreds of undergraduate students. I have been advisor for both science and 

engineering at the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, for 

PCAST and for various startup companies and venture capital firms in the Bay 

Area, which is the world’s most vibrant ecosystem for technological and business innovation. 

The focus of my work has always been to solve industrial or societal problems, 

and to dig deep into science when faced with difficult technical challenges. I have 

risked delving into new fields of research where I had no background, and have 

thrived on quickly learning the landscape and opening new paths where previously 

none existed. For these contributions, I was elected as one of the youngest members 

to the National Academy of Engineering, which is the nation’s highest honor in engineering. I have served as the director of several institutes both in academia and 

in professional organizations, and have more recently led the energy efficiency innovation efforts at Berkeley Labs. In February of this year, I testified before this committee on how to reduce energy consumption in buildings. If confirmed, I will bring 

this breadth and depth of knowledge in science, engineering, and management of 

technological innovation to lead ARPA-E from its genesis. 

One of the models for ARPA-E is DARPA, which was created in 1958 in response 

to the launch of Sputnik. This committee and others were instrumental in authorizing ARPA-E, and pointing it to address three ‘‘Sputniks’’ of our generation: (i) energy independence and security; (ii) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (iii) 

American competitiveness in the global energy and environment market. 

The goal of ARPA-E is to identify and anticipate technological barriers and gaps 

that impede progress towards these objectives and to rapidly innovate to overcome 

or circumvent them. ARPA-E will complement existing R & D programs by drawing 

upon the scientific discoveries and combining them with new engineering approaches to create innovative solutions for the market. Speed, calculated risks, internal competition, and agility will be the keys to the technological innovations that 
14 

will mark our success. Our nation’s history is replete with examples of pioneers and 

entrepreneurs who took risks, often failed initially, quickly learned from those failures, competed against each other, and innovated in both technology and business 

to create the largest industrial base the world has ever seen. If confirmed, I will 

lead ARPA-E to tap into this truly American ethos and identify and support the pioneers of the future. 

I believe that the nation that creates an economy based on reduced energy consumption, clean energy supply, and a smart energy infrastructure will lead the global economy of the 21st century. With the best R&D infrastructure in the world and 

a thriving innovation ecosystem in business and entrepreneurship, we have all the 

ingredients for success and we have made a great start. 

ARPA-E can play a critical role in accelerating progress towards these goals. The 

program has taken its first steps this year, and if confirmed, I pledge to use all my 

knowledge, expertise, and experience to help grow ARPA-E into a robust engine of 

American innovation in energy and environment. 

It is a privilege and an honor to testify before you today, and I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both very much for your very good 

statements. 

Let me ask a couple of questions and then defer to Senator Murkowski for her questions and then others. 

Dr. McNutt, one of the bills that we were able to pass here recently is the Secure Water Act. This is legislation that requires the 

USGS to compile data and develop strategies to address impacts 

associated with climate change. 

I do not know if you are in a position at this point, but if you 

are, I would be anxious to hear what plans USGS has to implement 

the Secure Water Act, how those plans fit within the structure established by Secretary Salazar’s recent order addressing the impacts of climate change on America’s land, water, and natural and 

cultural resources. Do you have enough information to give us some 

insights on that at this point? 

Ms. MCNUTT. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

I do know that, of course, the Secretary is extremely interested 

in moving forward in understanding impacts of climate and one of 

the major impacts is, of course, on water supplies. The Secure 

Water Act, in its emphasis on research on water, will fit right in 

with that. 

The fact that the Secure Water Act is based on the recommendations of a National Academy report is, of course, greatly in its favor 

because it is good science. It fits right in with the mission of the 

USGS, and as we all know, the USGS, in its cooperative program 

with the States, has worked very hard to try to keep its stream 

gauge network funded to provide vital information and data on the 

water resources in the United States. I very much would look forward, if confirmed, to working with you and this committee to put 

the stream gauge network on a solid financial footing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that. 

Let me just make one other comment. In previous years here, 

under the previous administration, we had real problems maintaining funding for USGS’ work related to water. There were proposed 

cuts in the water resources programs at USGS. Coming from an 

arid State and, of course, with the concerns that climate change 

could make it even more arid, which many of the scientists have 

now concluded, I am anxious that we adequately fund the Department’s budget to do the work required in these important programs. The ones I have in mind are the National Stream Flow In-
15 

formation Program, the National Groundwater Resources Monitoring Program, and the Cooperative Water Program. 

So I hope that you will be able to give those real priority. If you 

will, once confirmed, be fighting for adequate funding for them 

within the administration, I will be doing what I can to see that 

Congress supports that as well. 

Ms. MCNUTT. I think we are on the same wavelength there, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Majumdar, let me just mention to you—I 

think in your statements, you have got a good phrase there, ‘‘thriving innovation ecosystem,’’ as something that we need to promote 

and generate in our economy and our country and that the research and development infrastructure is an essential part of that. 

A lot of what you are going to be trying to do at ARPA–E, at 

least the way I think about it—and maybe you could comment as 

to where I am wrong on this, if I am. At our national laboratories, 

Department of Energy laboratories, as you have experienced there 

at Berkeley, the labs have a portion of money which is generally 

referred to as LDRD that the lab director can direct to those areas 

that have great potential but which do not necessarily have a sponsor in the sense of an agency that has come to them saying please 

do this or please do that. It seems to me that your job nationally 

is to do the same type of thing, identify those areas that have that 

same kind of great potential long-term and hopefully we will be 

able to maintain funding so that your new agency will be able to 

nurture those and develop those. 

Am I thinking of it properly by making that analogy to the 

LDRD funding at our national labs? 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. Thank you, Senator. I think the analogy is very 

appropriate. Having been in the national lab in Berkeley, I have 

been part of the LDRD system, and I think those are some of the 

ideas that we think are the catalysts of the future to grow something bigger and which often will not be looked at that favorably 

with the funding agencies because it is just too early. So in that 

respect, it is a great analogy. 

I think in the first round of proposals that ARPA–E had that I 

was not involved in, they received a tremendous interest from the 

scientific and engineering community, overwhelming in fact, which 

just goes to show how much sort of pent-up interest there is in 

looking at innovations in the energy and environment area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. McNutt, I appreciate the conversation that you had with the 

chairman about the water resources and the studies there. I would 

just add another one to put on your radar screen. 

Back in 2007, we passed the Alaska Water Resources Act that 

required USGS to do a study of the aquifers that are in the urban 

areas of the State, Anchorage, south central, and down in Homer, 

as we look to potential water shortages within the State. 

So the commitment that I believe I heard from you was that you 

would be working to get these. If not the studies, you mentioned 

the stream gauge network, which we recognize have not been given 

the greatest priority from a funding perspective. But it sounds like 
16 

you have got a commitment here to work in this area, and I would 

just appreciate you recognizing the Alaska piece up there as well. 

Oftentimes, I think it is believed that because we are surrounded 

by water and we have so many rivers and natural water sources, 

that we are OK up there. But we still would ask for the assistance 

that we gained in 2007 with that study. 

I wanted to ask you about the data that has been requested. As 

we look to the situation on our public lands and making decisions 

as to whether we develop our natural resources there, it is important that we fully understand what it is that we have. Earlier this 

year, I had sent a letter to Secretary Salazar requesting that the 

Department provide our office with maps and data that outlined 

the minerals, the oil and gas that is available, some of our renewable energy resources within some of these newly proposed wilderness areas and other land set-asides. Much of that data that they 

will need within Interior will be coming from USGS data bases. 

So the question I ask of you at this point in time is whether you 

will commit to providing that data to the committee as we have requested, and as that is collected, if within USGS you can provide 

us with a list of the energy and the mineral resources that are already set aside within these wilderness areas. So a collection of the 

data, and then providing that to us as well, is required. 

Ms. MCNUTT. Senator, thank you for bringing up this issue. During my Hill visits in preparation for this hearing, I heard about 

this issue actually from several Senators already, and clearly this 

is a big issue when it comes to setting aside wilderness areas to 

know ahead of time what exactly is being set aside. 

I think for many of these areas, there probably is already information that is known, and I simply do not know yet what kind of 

workload it would be. I would like to work with the Senators here 

on this committee and with the staff at the USGS to get an estimate of what it would take to actually meet your needs for this and 

come back to you with some kind of estimate of what we could deliver for you that would meet your needs and not impact other critical areas of the Survey’s mission at the same time. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would appreciate your review of that. As 

I think you probably learned in your visits, it is an issue that I 

think has generated a great deal of interest amongst members. It 

is important that we understand where our resources are and as 

we are talking about public land set-asides, what we are doing. The 

policy decisions are done using the science. 

Dr. Majumdar, let me ask you. Within ARPA–E, you are focusing 

on some pretty exciting things, and a lot of dreaming, a lot of 

visioning. Some would say it is impossible. But you are taking on 

some high-risk, high-pay-off technologies, and we have to believe 

that for every success that you have, you are going to have multiple failures. Given that we live in a technological age where, 

again, we expect an instantaneous result—we expect if we flip that 

switch, all of a sudden, we are going to be able to go from power 

that is generated by coal to power created by wind just like that— 

what is the real timeline, when we live in this world of instantaneous response? What is reasonable in terms of a timeline for us 

here in Congress to gauge the effectiveness of this program within 

ARPA–E? 
17 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. Thank you, Senator. I think that is a very good 

question. 

I feel a timeline depends really on the technology. In some cases, 

you are right. I think there will be—when anyone takes high risks 

and looks for high pay-offs, there will be a few things that may not 

go exactly the way we planned. But I think the real gain from that 

is to learn from the failures and sort of get around them in the future. 

I appreciate the question. I think the time depends on what we 

want to do. In some cases, I think the goal of ARPA–E—and if confirmed, this is where I would go—is to look at the industry and see 

where are the gaps, where are the technological barriers. You 

know, it is supposed to be a projects agency. So if there is a barrier, 

you can create a project and let five teams compete with each other 

and solve the problem, and then move on to other things. 

In that case, it could be—some of them could be shorter, but 

there are some issues which are much more longer-term. How do 

you take sunlight and create a fuel out of that? There are some 

basic science issues that are still being discovered right now. You 

know, if they get discovered, the question is then how to accelerate 

that into a commercial setting. Those can take longer. 

So it really depends on the kind of problems that ARPA–E 

solves. So it could be anywhere from 3 to 4 or 5 years or it could 

be even longer. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. The difficulty is in managing those expectations. 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You are looking at it from the scientific 

perspective, and I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning to both of you. I am very excited to think about 

the fact that when you are confirmed, the leadership you will bring 

to both of these important agencies. 

If I might, Dr. McNutt, I would turn to you first. I was pleased 

to note your connection to Colorado. You are a proud graduate of 

Colorado College. The USGS has a long history of directors who 

have deep roots in the landscapes, particularly of the West. John 

Wesley Powell, the first director of the USGS, of course is renowned for his adventures in the Grand Canyon. I dare to say I 

think you meet that standard. Clearly, there were times in your 

life where you spent more nights under the stars in a year’s time 

than you did under a roof. I think we are going to be very well 

served by your leadership in the USGS. 

You also, I think, give us an important standard to keep in mind 

in responding to Senator Bingaman’s questions. We focus a lot on 

one liquid, oil, a hydrocarbon, but I think if we focus on the building block of life here on our planet, H2O, water, and ensure that 

we have affordable, safe, and clean supplies of water, we will have 

healthy societies, less conflict, and a bright future. So I look forward to the work you do there. 
18 

If I could direct a question your way, you talked about the need 

to survey the coasts and that we know very little about those areas 

out to the 200-mile limit. Could you speak for a minute or so on 

your plans there and what you think we could do? 

Ms. MCNUTT. Yes. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

When I first arrived at my current institution, MBARI, we had 

no capabilities basically in-house for under-sea mapping, and I 

built a program there, which is now considered the Nation’s best 

for high-resolution, deep-sea mapping, which is delivered by autonomous underwater vehicles, which is a high-resolution, multi-beam 

sonar with sub-bottom profiling and is the, basically, envy of the 

world. 

Of course, the USGS’ program, from what I understand right 

now, is mostly coastal mapping, habitat mapping, and for its mission right now, is a very good program, interferometric mapping 

with unmanned surface vehicles. 

But I think there is a lot of work to be done with this vast portion of our under-sea territory which basically doubles the land 

area of the U.S. out to the 200-mile limit where we have resources 

that are basically unmapped and unassessed. So if confirmed in 

this position, I would definitely like to move the USGS in the direction of helping the U.S. catalog and assess and inventory what we 

have in that area and work with other agencies such as NOAA and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and MMS to help understand what 

we have in that region. 

Senator UDALL. Even those of us who represent land-locked 

States look forward to those findings and that new data set. I know 

the Senator from Alaska is eager to know about those resources 

and to further expand the size of the State of Alaska, I am sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MCNUTT. As a first step in that, the USGS has done a great 

job actually up in the Arctic already. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for those comments. 

Dr. Majumdar, I want to welcome you as well. My wife and I 

took our honeymoon in India and climbed some mountains there, 

of all things, and I have great fondness for the Indian people and 

have been proud to get to know a number of Indo-Americans who 

have become Americans. I am proud to be an American with you. 

I had a chance to meet the Dalai Lama yesterday, and when you 

meet the Dalai Lama, of course, you think of Mahatma Gandhi as 

well and that line of remarkable leaders who we have been fortunate to have as human beings. 

You clearly have a real interest in energy efficiency technology. 

I think there is a lot of violent agreement now on the Hill about 

the potential for energy efficiency. Could you just speak for a 

minute, as I see my time will expire, about this world of energy efficiency and what we could be doing and perhaps some of the potential that we do not even see today when it comes to energy efficiency? 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. Thank you, Senator. Thank you also for the kind 

comments about your honeymoon in India. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. I think energy efficiency is often called the lowhanging fruit, but as Senator Bingaman had said the last time 
19 

when I testified, it is tough to choose what to pick. I think that is 

appropriate. 

When I look at energy efficiency, there are three areas where energy goes, the big chunks. One is buildings, which is 40 percent of 

our energy, and three-quarters, 75 percent, of our electricity. They 

are really in many ways inefficient. The buildings do not work 

properly. Let me just give you an example. 

For example, in this building or in many large buildings, the centralized chillers, which are by themselves very efficient, but even 

if there is 1 percent in the building, the big chiller has to start running, and that is very inefficient as a system. So here is the problem. How do you take a centralized system and make it decentralized so that you can have cooling and heating on demand and only 

at certain locations? So that is a technical challenge that I think, 

you know, one could devote some effort in that. So buildings is one 

big area. 

Transportation systems, making more efficient internal combustion engines; electrification, looking into batteries and high energy 

density batteries, which is safe and which are low cost, and that 

is on the transportation side. 

Then the industrial. So things like cement, steel, glass manufacturing needs a lot of heat and all that heat is wasted, if some of 

the heat could be recovered and used in useful ways. 

There is a lot of potential out there. So I think this is really a 

huge opportunity for the United States. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. You just demonstrated why you are 

going to be a tremendous leader of ARPA–E. Thank you. 

Mr. MAJUMDAR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. Dr. McNutt, in looking at 

the work that you have done, I am obviously very impressed with 

the ocean work, and certainly that is going to be important as we 

move forward. I think probably one of the biggest blanks in our scientific knowledge in America is ocean conditions. I think that transcends to a lot of different inquiries, not the least of which is salmon recovery, which is really important in the Pacific Northwest. 

Certainly with climate change, obviously, ocean conditions play a 

big part, and we know very little about it. So I am impressed to 

see that, and I am impressed to see that you bring that knowledge 

to the agency. 

Having said that, I have a much less visionary question for you 

and much more practical. Those of us who live out west frequently 

pick up USGS maps, and they are something we have used for a 

long time. They are a tremendous resource for Americans, particularly those of us who live in the West. Unfortunately, every time 

I pick one up, if you look at the bottom, it says it was based on 

work that was done in the 1960s. 

Are there any plans afoot to bring this forward, or do you have 

other higher priorities than this that are on the books? 

Ms. MCNUTT. OK. That is a very good question, Senator, and 

from what I understand, just based on some very preliminary briefings, there are moves afoot to do new registrations of all of the 

USGS data sets to make sure that they are all such that the points 

from all of the data sets, whether it is a topographic data set or 
20 

a LANDSAT data set or an ecological data set, that they are all 

perfectly registered, which will improve all of them. 

So whether that involves a reissuing of the maps, I would guess 

that that probably does, but I will have to get back to you on the 

details of exactly what that involves in terms of the topo maps 

themselves. So I do not exactly have the answer in terms of what 

that involves with the topographic maps, but I believe it does because of the fact that not all of them actually go back to exactly 

the same datum. 

Senator RISCH. That is true—they do not go back to the same 

data. The actual work on the topo maps is good; the problem is 

there have been a lot of changes. Many, many roads have been 

built over the last 40–50 years that are not on there, and structures, improvements and what have you. So I would encourage you 

to do something in that regard, although I understand your focus 

is on ocean conditions. Those of us that live in the West—we are 

interior States, as Senator Udall indicated, although we do have a 

seaport in Idaho, believe it or not, we are interested in the surface 

that we have available to us. 

Ms. MCNUTT. Senator, I do not want to give the impression that 

my focus is entirely on the ocean, although I do believe that there 

are many new opportunities there. Basically as humans, we live on 

the land and that is where the rubber is going to meet the road 

with many of the challenges we face. So certainly I would, if confirmed, not ignore the land where we have to live, where we have 

to grow our food, where we have to build our homes, where we 

have to build our constructs. So, no, I will not ignore the land. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Doctor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Risch, let me just ask, before going to 

Senator Barrasso, where is your seaport? 

Senator RISCH. It is in Lewiston, Idaho. 

The CHAIRMAN. Lewiston, Idaho. I did not know that was a seaport. 

Senator RISCH. It is a seaport. So long as the dams remain in the 

lower Snake River, it will be a seaport. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Yes, I learned quite a bit this morning. 

Go ahead, Senator Barrasso. 

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

I want to congratulate both of you on these nominations. I want 

to welcome your families, congratulate them as well for being here. 

Dr. McNutt, thanks so much for taking the time to come to my 

office and visit earlier today. We talked about a range of things, including monitoring of volcanoes in the West. We talked about energy needs across the world, talked about global climate change, 

talked about carbon and carbon sequestration. 

I wanted to just visit a little bit about some of the energy needs. 

Wyoming is a State with abundant resources in coal, which to me 

remain the most affordable, reliable, secure source of energy. I 

think it is an irreplaceable part of our energy portfolio. Clean coal 

and carbon capture and sequestration technology are critical components of making our energy cleaner. Wyoming is a leader in 

these issues and I believe can be a big part of the solution. We also 
21 

have significant capacity, as you and I have discussed, for underground carbon sequestration compared to other States. 

Can I ask you what role you see coal playing in America’s energy 

future? 

Ms. MCNUTT. Yes, Senator. I have been briefed on some preliminary USGS studies, and from what I understand, the country does 

have significant coal resources, but from what I understand, about 

0.5 percent is recoverable in existing mines and about 10 percent 

is easily recoverable. Then the curve starts going up pretty quickly 

in terms of the cost of recovery. So although there is a lot of it out 

there, the cost starts going up pretty quickly, and as the cost goes 

up, it is because of the technology for getting it out of the ground 

and the environmental costs and other things too. So at that point, 

it starts trading off with other types of energy as well. So we have 

a lot of it is the good news, but the bad news is we start paying 

more for it. 

Senator BARRASSO. What role will your agency play in the administration’s efforts toward carbon capture and sequestration? 

Ms. MCNUTT. The role that the USGS plays in that is that we 

are involved in doing the methodology and ultimately, if funded, an 

assessment of how much storage is available, both geological and 

biological, for CO2 storage. 

Senator BARRASSO. What kind of major challenges do you think 

we face in working on carbon capture and sequestration? 

Senator BARRASSO. I think that basically the back-of-the-envelope calculations that I have seen from both my involvement with 

Stanford University and my service on Schlumberger’s Technology 

Committee is that the U.S. as a Nation has decades’ worth of storage in abandoned oil fields and centuries of storage in salt mines. 

Senator BARRASSO. As you know, throughout the West, there are 

split estates where the land is owned by one group for ranching 

purposes and others and then the minerals under the land by another. Sometimes that is the Federal Government. You may not 

have given thought to this, but the pore space under the land—it 

is not mineral. It is not the top for grazing or for growing. It is the 

pore space, and we have been dealing with that in Wyoming. I do 

not know if you have ever given any thought to the Federal Government, if they would own that pore space or who would own that 

pore space, or how you would envision that with some of these split 

estates where the surface is owned by one and the under-surface, 

the minerals, by the Federal Government because we have a lot of 

Federal Government involvement. 

Ms. MCNUTT. Senator, these sound like very difficult legal and 

policy discussions that would be well above my pay grade. 

Senator BARRASSO. They may be your pay grade. You will, I am 

sure, hear more about those. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Most of what we consider around here is above 

our respective pay grades, but that does not hold us back. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, did you have any other 

questions? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I do not have any follow-ups. 
22 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you both very much. We hope 

to be able to move your nominations to the full Senate quickly, and 

we appreciate your being here. 

That will conclude our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(23) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PH.D., TO QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. An increasing number of technological improvements have shrunk the 

drilling footprint for oil and gas, including deeper and longer reaches for accessing 

oil and gas reserves. In your considerable experience with the earth sciences, have 

you encountered any scenario where directional oil and gas drilling has caused surface impacts outside of its drillpad footprint? I mean to ask in terms of surface subsidence, seismicity, geological changes, anything that a layperson might consider a 

risk. 

Answer. I am not an expert on directional drilling and its environmental impact, 

but do have some passing exposure to the technology from my service on 

Schlumberger’s Technology Committee. I have personally used directional drilling at 

my own institution to install the casing for a cabled observatory across a very dynamic shoreline to the deep sea. Directional drilling offsets the footprint of the surface expression of the drilling from the subsurface tapping of the oil and gas deposits. My understanding is that the issues you raise, such as ground subsidence, induced seismicity, and other geological changes are less dependent on the drilling 

technology than on other factors. 

Question 2. I recently had the opportunity to visit a 4-D seismic facility in the 

Gulf region. It was a truly fascinating technology to witness in action—originally 

there was two-dimensional seismic and now 3-D seismic is commonly used to zero 

in on mineral resources thousands of feet below the ground or the ocean floor. My 

question is whether you’ve had a chance to view and really get a sense of this modern surveying technology, and if you feel it will play an important role in energy 

exploration during your tenure? 

Answer. A few years ago I had the opportunity to see the fabulous imaging facilities at the University of Texas, Austin. I was similarly impressed by its capability 

to visualize large 3-D seismic data sets. At the time, they were using the facility 

for both aquifer and oil reservoir modeling. Such 3-D imaging is definitely here now 

for energy exploration, and I believe that during my tenure, if confirmed, we will 

need to move to 4-D on account of the highly unstable state of resources such as 

methane hydrates. This is yet another area where the USGS will rely on partnerships on account of the high overhead in building and maintaining such state-of theart data acquisition, processing, and imaging facilities. Based on my experience, 

there is excess external capacity that the USGS can leverage. 

Question 3. I have a bill (S. 782) pending to better fund USGS efforts to monitor 

the nation’s volcanoes. It would support upgraded observation efforts, not just in 

Yellowstone and along the West Coast, but in Alaska as well. What is your opinion 

of the bill and the importance of better science concerning our nation’s geophysical 

hazards? 

Answer. I agree that it is important to have the best and most up-to-date science 

regarding natural hazards that is available to us. Worldwide, events associated with 

geophysical hazards cause many deaths and result in billions of dollars of damage 

in destruction to homes and infrastructure and aid. Information provided by the 

USGS is important to help in both the preparation for these events and in our understanding of how and why these events happen. I am not familiar with the details 

of S. 782, but if confirmed I will become more familiar with this legislation. 

Question 4. Secretary Salazar recently signed an order that outlines the Department of the Interior’s basic strategy for responding to the ‘‘current and future impacts of climate change on America’s land, water, ocean, fish, wildlife, and cultural 

resources.’’ As a non-regulatory agency responsible for producing objective scientific 

information, what role do you believe the USGS can and should play in this effort? 
24 

Answer. As the science agency for the Department of the Interior and because of 

its interdisciplinary climate change science expertise, the USGS is well positioned 

to provide objective, unbiased, timely and responsive science information to a diverse group of decision makers. The principal focus of this information is to provide 

a better understanding to policy makers of the impacts and effects of climate change 

on a wide array of America’s natural and cultural resources, including water availability for both human and ecological needs, the ability to find, extract and transport energy resources, the proliferation of invasive species and wildland fire, and the 

risks of sea-level rise and coastal erosion on America’s critical infrastructure, to 

name just a few. I believe that the appropriate role for the USGS is to provide the 

science needed to enable more effective and cost efficient decision and policy making. 

Question 5. Earlier this year, Secretary Salazar testified before our Committee 

about the renewable energy potential of the United States. The maps he brought 

with him were meant to show resource locations throughout the country, but left 

off my home state of Alaska as well as Hawaii. Obviously, I wasn’t happy about 

that, and it’s not an isolated incident. Quite a few of the maps produced by executive agencies depict only the Lower 48, and make no mention of our offshore states. 

If confirmed as Director of the USGS, will you commit to including all 50 states— 

including Alaska and Hawaii—on any map that depicts the Lower 48? 

Answer. I will, and I can think of no reason why Alaska and Hawaii should not 

be included with the rest of the states in a map depicting the entire United States. 

I might add personally that I have had many occasions in the course of my own 

research to visit many locations in both Alaska and Hawaii, and hope to make more 

visits to USGS facilities there if confirmed. 

Question 6. Please describe the role of the USGS in addressing water availability 

problems throughout the United States. 

Answer. As I understand it, the USGS develops and delivers technical information 

and analytical tools to resource professionals and the general public, allowing them 

to evaluate the questions they face about the quantity, quality, and use of water 

resources across the Nation. This includes hydrological, geological, and biological information, as well as the ancillary data that allow sound analysis of that information. I am also aware that much of this information is provided through the USGS’s 

Cooperative Water Program, a partnership with states, tribes, and local governments, to provide important information. 

Question 7. If confirmed, how would you increase our understanding of underground water resources? 

Answer. Historically, the USGS has been a leader in the assessment and development of techniques for studying the Nation’s groundwater resources. If confirmed, 

I will work to build on these strengths to assure that the USGS continues to provide 

both relevant, up-to-date basic information and cutting edge technology to evaluate 

the Nation’s groundwater resources. 

Question 8. Please describe what will be the most important ground water related 

challenges facing the nation over the next decade and the role that the USGS 

should play in addressing these challenges. 

Answer. Groundwater is one of the Nation’s most important natural resources, 

and it faces many pressures from human development. My own home is in the Salinas Valley, the ‘‘salad bowl of the Nation,’’ which exports $3.4 billion annually in 

agricultural produce thanks to the Salinas aquifer. The challenges include the quality of the resource, its sustainability, and its connection to surface water. Climate 

change could both increase these pressures and make groundwater even more valuable to society during periods of drought and water stress. Many aquifers cross 

State boundaries. I believe that the USGS is the primary federal agency responsible 

for providing an objective assessment of the quality and quantity of groundwater in 

the Nation’s aquifers, and the agency has a unique capability to provide nationally 

consistent information. The USGS also plays a major role in developing models and 

techniques for evaluating groundwater. 

Question 9. If confirmed, how will you manage the stream gauge program? What 

options will you pursue to ensure that adequate funding is provided to the program? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to manage the streamgage program in accordance with the plan described in the National Streamflow Information Program 

documents. I am very aware of the importance of the USGS streamgage program 

and will work with the Administration to ensure it receives continued support. 

Question 10. Please describe your perspective on the appropriate role the federal 

government, the state government and the private sector should play in collecting 

and analyzing water monitoring data. 

Answer. There is a certain portion of water monitoring that can and should be 

left to the private sector because there is a regulatory framework that oversees it, 
25 

a large enough market to drive competition, a simple connection between what is 

measured and who it is measured for, and/or a user base willing (or required) to 

pay for the information. The role for government is indicated when the private sector is unlikely to step in because the monitoring is regarded as a public good and 

it is, for that reason, not possible to apportion costs to the users. In fact, depending 

on whether the year is a flood year or a drought year, the degree to which various 

federal, state, local, and private groups have a need for the information could 

change. Federal/state partnerships are an excellent mechanism for sharing the responsibility for monitoring because many surface and subsurface water systems 

cross state boundaries; even within states, jurisdictions are shared. 

Question 11. As you are well aware, the Arctic has recently become an area of 

great focus, and scientific input is essential to guiding the development of policies 

in and for this region. The Federal approach to Arctic scientific research is encapsulated in the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984. This Act created the US Arctic Research Commission (USARC), a small independent agency that provides goals 

for Arctic research, and created the Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee (IARPC), which implements these goals. These agencies and yours have specific responsibilities outlined in the Act, yet recently these entities have not worked 

together effectively to create an integrated scientific research plan and an associated 

budget. Will you provide leadership from DOI and USGS to ensuring that the Act 

is implemented as defined in law? 

Answer. While I am not familiar with the Arctic Research and Policy Act, I know 

that Arctic policy is important to Secretary Salazar and agree that scientific research is important to effective management of Arctic resources and ecosystems. If 

confirmed, I will ensure that the USGS is providing leadership, within the context 

of its role under the law, to implement that Act. 

Question 12. Will you commit to supporting re-investment in Arctic research infrastructure, critical to the conduct of scientific research? 

Answer. I agree that scientific research is critically important to effective management of Arctic resources and ecosystems. I will commit to soliciting, evaluating and 

considering research needs for the Arctic within the U.S. Geological Survey’s budget 

process. 

Question 13. We commemorated the 20th anniversary of the giant Exxon Valdez 

oil spill in Alaska last March. After the spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act 

of 1990. That law promised Americans a robust oil spill prevention and response research program. The interagency coordinating committee on oil pollution research, 

created by that law that includes your agency, besides MMS, is an ‘‘orphan’’ committee. To the best of my knowledge this committee has not met recently and has 

never met regularly. Yet we have expanded the nation’s offshore drilling program 

in Alaska and citizens of Alaska’s North Slope have sued to slow down exploration 

because Alaskans still have questions about oil cleanup in ice conditions. A new 8- 

nation Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, delivered to the Arctic Council in April, 

further stresses the need for this research. As such, will you commit to ensure that 

the nation has a well-planned and support well-funded oil spill research program, 

and further that this program, in cold regions, is well coordinated with the US Arctic Research Commission and the Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee? 

Answer. I understand that the USGS has done significant research on the biological impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, but I am not familiar with the interagency 

coordinating committee you mention. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more 

about the work of this committee and will ensure that the USGS work in this arena 

is coordinated with MMS and is available to the committee. Through my position 

as chair of the National Research Council’s Ocean Studies Board, I know that the 

Board has been asked to undertake a study of oil spill cleanup in ice-covered regions 

and is in the process of raising the necessary agency support to begin the study. 

I hope that the results of this study will also help with concrete recommendations 

for any research needs for oil spill research for ice covered areas. 

RESPONSES OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PH.D., TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 14. Secretary Salazar recently signed a Secretarial Order incorporating 

climate change into all land management decisions at the Department of Interior. 

I am concerned that the Order puts into question past and future management 

agreements. 

It could have serious implications for all public land uses: 

• Recreational use; 

• Oil and gas development; 

• Renewable energy development; 
26 

• Grazing; • And Hunting and Fishing; 

These regulations will hit the Western United States the hardest. This Administration cannot continue to promulgate sweeping regulations on climate change, before Congress acts on an energy strategy. These decisions have major impacts on 

the American people, American jobs, and our economy. As the lone science agency 

within the Department of Interior, you will be at the center of this initiative. 

• What is your agency’s role in this initiative? • What will your focus be in implementing this order? • What mechanisms will you use to provide transparency in your agency’s research and recommendations? 

Answer. As I understand it, the USGS role in implementing the Secretarial Order 

is to provide the science, monitoring, modeling, and decision support to enable and 

empower more effective decisions and policies by those who make them. Thus, its 

focus is on providing the very best climate change science information in a timely 

and responsive manner so that those responsible for making resource management 

decisions and for developing and shaping the Nation’s policies regarding resources 

impacted by climate change can do so with confidence. If confirmed, I am committed 

to the continuation of the USGS peer-review process, which ensures that all sciencebased information and related conclusions are unbiased and objective, and that the 

processes involved are well-understood and transparent. 

Question 15. There is a Yellowstone Volcano Observatory in Wyoming, jointly operated by the USGS, Yellowstone National Park, and the University of Utah. The 

volcanic monitoring work done at Yellowstone provides important data for ensuring 

public safety. I have received comments from people in the State that the data on 

volcanic activity produced by the Yellowstone Volcanic Observatory is not easily accessible for non-Observatory officials. 

• What can USGS do to share appropriate information with local officials, emergency personnel, and the public in order to plan and prepare for volcanic activity? • I would like to have your commitment to work with me and those officials to 

identify solutions to these problems. 

Answer. While I am not familiar with this specific issue, I agree that it is important to have up-to-date scientific and monitoring data available to the public. If confirmed, I will look into the situation at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and 

look forward to addressing your constituents’ concerns. 

RESPONSES OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PH.D., TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 16. The United States Geological Survey plays an important role in 

Great Lakes management and research. These waters make up 20 percent of the 

world’s fresh water supply, and thirty-three million people rely on the Great Lakes 

for their drinking water, including 10 million just from Lake Michigan alone. The 

Great Lakes’ coastlines are also home to wetlands, dunes and endangered species 

and plants. Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of 

any Great Lake. However, the Great Lakes are not just an important natural resource, but they are also a critical part of Michigan’s economy and quality of life. 

Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year to enjoy our beaches, fishing and 

boating. 

Given the importance of the Great Lakes and the role USGS plays in their management and protection, could you please describe USGS’s role in working with 

other agencies to ensure that the $400 million Congress is appropriating for the 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is effectively used? 

Answer. I appreciate the value and importance of collaboration for achieving the 

goals of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in a fiscally responsible and 

effective manner. I am informed that the USGS is in close communication with 

other agencies involved in this initiative and is coordinating its efforts to avoid overlap and maximize use of funds. If confirmed, I look forward to working to ensure 

effective use of the Great Lakes Restoration funds appropriated by Congress. 

Question 17. Dr. McNutt, the USGS is currently in the lead in inventorying the 

various geologic opportunities across the Nation for sequestration of carbon from our 

coal-fired and other carbon-intensive power plants. Can you please explain to the 

Committee your views on the future of carbon sequestration as a means to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and your vision of where the USGS would fit into this 

future as the premier earth science agency of the Federal government? Would you 

agree to keep this Committee informed as to the status of the inventory of carbon 
27 

capture and sequestration sites, including the viability of the Mt. Simon formation 

in Michigan? 

Answer. The true global storage capacity of geologic formations is unknown at this 

point. Geologic storage capacity varies on a regional and national scale, as well as 

by reservoir type. A more refined understanding of geologic storage capacity is needed to determine how much of the overall storage capacity could actually be utilized 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I understand that the USGS has worked up 

a methodology for assessing the capacity for geologic sequestration of carbon that 

is currently out for peer review. If confirmed, I look forward to keeping the Committee informed of our progress in gaining understanding at various sites. 

RESPONSES OF ARUN MAJUMDAR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. When it comes to advanced research project agencies run by the government, I think most of us are familiar with DARPA (Defense) and HSARPA 

(Homeland Security). It seems to me that a major difference with ARPA-E, if not 

the difference, is who the customer is. For both DARPA and HSARPA, the customer 

is the Government. For ARPA-E, the customer is the individual consumer. What differences do you envision ARPA-E having from the other advanced research project 

agencies to meet the consumer needs? 

Answer. I agree that the end user issue is a key distinction. In the case of ARPAE there are a number of potential customers. For example, in some cases ARPAE will look at common technical barriers faced by an industry and create a focused 

effort to overcome or circumvent these barriers. In such cases, the customer will be 

the industry or business. In the case of efficiency work, APRA-E customers could 

be utilities that are implementing efficiency programs. Federal, state and local governments could also be consumers, given their large building stocks and transportation fleets. 

Another difference between ARPA-E and DARPA/HSARPA is that, while ARPAE will be focused on creating new technology, it will also be strongly influenced by 

the demands of policy and markets. Hence, cost and economic issues as well as 

scalability will be key factors affecting ARPA-E decisions, whereas DARPA/HSARPA 

are generally shielded from such considerations. It is very important for ARPA-E 

to engage with both business communities and policy makers to ensure that there 

is alignment between technology, policy, and markets so that ARPA-E technologies 

can be adopted quickly. 

Question 2. Please explain your view of the relationship and role of the existing 

applied science programs within DOE, the energy frontier research centers, the new 

energy innovation hubs, and ARPA-E when it comes to developing new energy technologies. 

Answer. ARPA-E will be a projects agency, with its projects designed to identify, 

anticipate, and overcome technical barriers that require innovation. ARPA-E will 

partner with the Office of Science to expand or adapt its basic research to overcome 

or circumvent these barriers, and it will work with the applied programs (EERE, 

FE, OE, NE) to deploy these innovations to the market at scale. One key difference 

between ARPA-E and other DOE offices is that program managers in ARPA-E will 

be temporary; therefore, partnerships with the DOE institutional programs will be 

essential to provide institutional memory in these technical fields. Speed, risk-taking, nimble, agile, internal competition, focus on technological innovation, addressing market needs, and time-bound describe the way ARPA-E will operate. 

ARPA-E and EFRCs: EFRCs are focused on basic science—understanding matter 

at the level of electrons, understanding complex emergent behavior, highly non-equilibrium behavior, etc. Their goal is to understand nature. The relationship between 

ARPA-E and EFRCs will be two fold: 

1. ARPA-E will use the scientific toolbox provided by the EFRCs and other 

science programs to attack a problem or a technical barrier of industrial relevance. 

2. ARPA-E will identify technical barriers of industrial relevance, and if it 

finds that the science is not understood well, inform relevant EFRCs and other 

science programs to focus on better understanding the science. 

ARPA-E and Hubs: The Energy Innovation Hubs have the following characteristics: (a) they will look at long-term transformation of a whole field; (b) they will 

span basic science to market penetration; (c) the teams will be placed under one roof 

(or perhaps two). In contrast, ARPA-E’s focus will be short term (3 years) projectsbased programs that will address a technical barrier of industrial relevance. Once 

that barrier is overcome or circumvented, that program will be closed and new pro-
28 

grams, perhaps in other topics, will be created. ARPA-E and the Hubs will, hence, 

be distinct but they will be able to leverage each other. 

Question 3. Given the constraints on the DOE budget and the desire to increase 

funding for the science and applied R&D programs, what priority should be placed 

on funding ARPA-E? 

Answer. As the nominee for director of ARPA-E, I believe funding ARPA-E should 

be a very high priority. Particularly in these early years, it is important to show 

growth in the budget in order to build a constituency within the technical community and recruit the best program managers. As the members of this committee 

know, Congress included ARPA-E in the America COMPETES Act in large part due 

to the need for innovative approaches to energy. We have a three pronged energy 

challenge in terms of: (a) energy independence and national security; (b) reduced 

green house gas emissions; (c) American competitiveness in the global market. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working with DOE leadership and with Congress to ensure that ARPA-E has the funding necessary to make real progress on all three 

fronts. 

Question 4. Funding for current ARPA-E programs came from the stimulus bill. 

Do you expect a funding request for ARPA-E in the Fiscal Year 2011 DOE budget? 

If so, for how much? 

Answer. I have not been involved in the formulation of DOE’s FY 2011 budget; 

but if confirmed, I will work with DOE leadership and with Congress to assure adequate funding for ARPA-E. 

Question 5. I understand around 3,500 concept papers were received in response 

to the initial funding opportunity released in April. Do you expect a similar number 

of concept papers for future funding opportunities? When do you expect the final decision to be made on which concept applications from the initial opportunity will receive funding? 

Answer. While I was not involved with the initial ARPA-E solicitation, I believe 

that the high volume of concept papers submitted indicates a very strong demand 

for this type of funding opportunity, suggesting that future solicitations will also 

yield a high volume of applications. My understanding is that DOE intends to announce award selections from this first FOA by the end of this year. I also understanding that, while this first FOA was extremely broad, the next may seek to identify topic areas of greatest interest to ARPA-E. At the same time, however, I believe 

we should make some provision for unsolicited proposals in topics not covered by 

focused programs. Such an option can help assure that ARPA-E does not miss any 

truly innovative and game-changing ideas. ARPA-E needs to create a reputation of 

openness—a ‘‘go-to’’ place for truly extraordinary ideas. 

Question 6. The ARPA-E funding opportunity announcement issued in July, 2009, 

severely limited the participation of the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and prohibited the FFRDCs from leading projects. Do you 

see this restriction being lifted for future funding opportunities? 

Answer. Good ideas and innovations can come from anywhere—academia, national labs, industry, non-profits, individual inventors, etc. ARPA-E should be able 

to support the best ideas, regardless of where they come, including FFRDCs. If confirmed, I plan to look into this issue and draw on the lessons learned from the first 

solicitation to see if any adjustments are necessary. 

Question 7. The funding opportunity announcement also limited the period of performance for projects to 36 months. Technology innovation is neither a linear nor 

predictable process. As director of ARPA-E how would you measure the success of 

projects funded under this funding opportunity if the stated objectives of the 

projects are not met as a result of this somewhat arbitrary time constraint? Do you 

think that an arbitrary time constraint is consistent with the mission of ARPA-E? 

Answer. I agree that technology innovation is not necessarily linear or predictable, 

but we have an obligation to strike a balance by preventing an open-ended process 

that taps into a funding stream in perpetuity. That being said, some projects, even 

if they are not ‘‘completed,’’ may merit support beyond the time constraint, based 

on progress or promise. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee 

to balance these priorities. 

Question 8. How quickly do you anticipate having enough Program Managers on 

board to move forward with additional funding opportunities? From which sectors 

(industry, laboratories, universities, etc.) do you hope to find and attract program 

managers? 

Answer. As a new agency, ARPA-E must be staffed quickly with a team of the 

ablest, most experienced men and women in energy science, technology, and business. If confirmed, I will work to put together such a team. Program managers will 

receive both autonomy and scrutiny as they work to create projects that identify and 

reduce barriers through technological innovation and address the three goals of 
29 

ARPA-E—energy independence and security; reducd green house gas emission; and 

American competitiveness. Since program mangers will be temporary, i.e. 3-4 years, 

there will be a constant churn of fresh minds and ideas in ARPA-E. 

I anticipate that at current funding levels, ARPA-E should have a team of about 

10-12 technical program managers. Currently, it has three. My goal will be to recruit program managers who have the following characteristics: 

1. Active/practicing scientists and engineers from the best R&D labs in academia, national labs, and industry 

2. Limited appointment of 3-5 years 

3. Solid science/engineering foundations, deep knowledge of their field, and 

demonstrated creative R&D 

4. Demonstrated ability to ‘‘sniff out’’ important problems, of interdisciplinary 

work, of ‘‘team science’’, and innovations in fields other than their own 

5. Entrepreneurial 

6. Ability to span and bridge basic science and engineering systems 

7. Willingness to learn and ability to learn quickly 

Question 9. Once you have program managers on board, do you anticipate that 

the program managers would be given the freedom and flexibility to construct research and development teams from among the various participants in our Nation’s 

scientific and technological enterprise without limitations on the level of participation by any member of the group? 

Answer. I believe that freedom and flexibility are vital to the success of ARPAE. As I noted above, speed, agility, and risk-taking are integral to the core mission 

of ARPA-E. If confirmed, I plan to work with program managers to foster an innovative spirit that taps into as many scientific and technological brains as possible. I 

will give these program managers, who are the best in their field, sufficient autonomy to design their own programs within the strategic plans of ARPA-E. Having 

said that, these managers will also be scrutinized as to the design of the programs 

and how they manage them. Program managers will be required to take ‘‘deep 

dives’’ into their program topic and be in close touch with PIs within their programs 

(multiple site visits per year, getting to know how teams are performing and what 

are the barriers in the various labs, etc.) and evaluate how they are performing. 

Program managers will be encouraged to make decisions on when to terminate 

projects that are not productive and reallocate resources to those projects that show 

promise. 

Question 10. Do you anticipate cost sharing to be a regular requirement for 

ARPA-E proposals? 

Answer. Coming from the University of California system, I am aware of the tight 

budget situation that makes cost sharing a major concern. I am sympathetic to the 

burden of cost sharing for universities, national labs, and entrepreneurial businesses. If confirmed, I plan to look into this issue and draw on the lessons learned 

from the first solicitation to see if any adjustments are necessary. 

RESPONSES OF ARUN MAJUMDAR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 1. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made significant investments in advanced manufacturing so that we can ensure that the technologies 

of the future are made right here in the United States. My home state of Michigan 

is a perfect example of how we can utilize our manufacturing and engineering expertise, highly developed manufacturing infrastructure, and world class universities 

to provide a home for advanced manufacturing technologies and processes. I understand that ARPA-E is designed to invest in the development of cutting edge technologies, but how do you see the program playing a larger role in manufacturing 

these technologies? For example, can ARPA-E play a role in developing the advanced manufacturing processes that will be needed to take many of these projects 

to the next level? 

Answer. Yes. In my view, one of the strengths of ARPA-E is its flexibility to look 

across the energy space to address all sorts of barriers. We know that there are currently challenges regarding mass manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and other technologies. For example, batteries are a significant challenge in 

broad-scale deployment of hybrid and electric vehicles. Most of the materials in today’s lithion ion batteries were discovered in the US, but the manufacturing is now 

in Asia. If confirmed, I will look to see how ARPA-E can take the lead in advanced 

battery technology while also creating a manufacturing base in the US. There is 

great benefit in co-locating manufacturing and advanced technology development 

since there needs to be feedback between them. Lessons learnt from how the semi-
30 

conductor industry competed in the 1980s and 1990s could be very valuable for 

American competitiveness in the global energy market. 

Question 2. Following passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 

the ARPA-E program has been widely successful in promoting innovation all across 

the United States. By investing in technologies that can truly transform our energy 

sector, the program has received thousands of applications from businesses seeking 

to demonstrate new clean energy technologies. Many businesses and universities in 

my home state of Michigan have sought to capitalize on this opportunity and demonstrate that Michigan is home to a large portion of clean energy technology development. 

As the agency moves forward on plans for future competitions, I would like emphasize the importance of taking steps to ensure that many of these cutting-edge 

solutions come from the broadest number of innovators. Given the volume of applications that were submitted, how will you as director of the program ensure that 

each application is given a fair and comprehensive review? 

Answer. I am committed to giving each application due consideration in the process. While I was not part of the initial ARPA-E solicitation, my understanding is 

that DOE made resources and reviewers available to adequately vet the concept papers submitted. 

If confirmed, I will oversee a review process that is open, fair, and transparent. 

Having been on the receiving end of both good and bad news in the past, I can not 

emphasize enough how important it is to engage with proposers in a productive and 

open manner. 

It is my understanding that the purpose of the first FOA was to address a broad, 

pent-up demand for this kind of funding and to identify topic areas of greatest interest to ARPA-E. If confirmed, I plan to create focused programs to solve particular 

technical barriers. At the same time, I also recognize the value of an option for considering unsolicited proposals in topics not covered by the focused programs. Such 

an option can help assure that ARPA-E does not miss any truly innovative, gamechanging ideas. ARPA-E needs to create a reputation of openness—a ‘‘go-to’’ place 

for truly extraordinary ideas. 

Æ