<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:28852.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-787
NOMINATIONS OF SANTANU K. BARUAH; GEORGE M. GRAY; LYONS GRAY; H. DALE
HALL; AND EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR.
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
SANTANU ``SANDY'' J., BARUAH, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GEORGE M. GRAY, TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LYONS GRAY, TO BE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
H. DALE HALL, TO BE DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., TO BE MEMBER OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-852 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
OPENING STATEMENTS
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina 1
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico 2
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 4
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 5
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon..... 3
WITNESSES
Baruah, ``Sandy'' Santanu K., nominated to be Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Economic Development........................... 6
Committee questionnaire...................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 21
Senator Bond............................................. 30
Senator Chafee........................................... 20
Senator Clinton.......................................... 22
Senator Jeffords......................................... 17
Senator Voinovich........................................ 29
Gray, George M., nominated to be Assistant Administrator, Office
of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency... 6
Committee questionnaire...................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 45
Senator Clinton.......................................... 44
Senator Jeffords......................................... 42
Gray, Lyons, nominated to be Chief Financial Officer,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 8
Committee questionnaire...................................... 66
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Hall, H. Dale, nominated to be Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service........................................................ 10
Committee questionnaire...................................... 84
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 81
Senator Chafee........................................... 82
Senator Jeffords......................................... 80
McGaffigan, Edward, Jr., nominated to be a Member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 11
Committee questionnaire...................................... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 100
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords...... 101
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters of support for nominee H. Dale Hall:
Association of California Water Agencies..................... 94
California Waterfowl......................................... 92
Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies............ 96
Office of Natural Resources Trustee.......................... 95
Oklahoma Farm Bureau Legal Foundation........................ 93
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies............ 97
NOMINATIONS OF SANTANU K. BARUAH; GEORGE M. GRAY; LYONS GRAY; H. DALE
HALL; AND EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR.
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Chafee, Thune and Jeffords.
Also present: Senators Burr, Domenici and Smith.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Burr.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Senator
Jeffords, thank you for this opportunity.
It is my pleasure to be here today to introduce Lyons Gray
of Winston-Salem, NC and to enthusiastically endorse his
nomination to be Chief Financial Officer of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Lyons currently heads the EPA's Environmental Financial
Advisory Board, an outside panel that seeks to lower costs,
increase investment and build capacity by creating partnerships
with State and local governments and the private sector to fund
environmental needs.
Lyons served for more than 12 years in distinction in the
North Carolina General Assembly. As the co-chair of the House
Finance Committee, he was responsible for a State budget of $14
billion, almost twice the annual EPA budget.
During Lyons' tenure in the State House, he was known on
both sides of the aisle as a friend and defender of the
environment. A lobbyist for the Sierra Club who worked with
then Representative Gray in Raleigh recently commented in the
Winston-Salem Journal that Representative Gray was usually a
positive voice for the environment in the General Assembly.
Lyons also served for 9 years on the State Board of the
Nature Conservancy and as a member of the Board of Visitors at
the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.
More recently, Lyons served as the president of the
Downtown Winston-Salem Partnership, an organization that helped
promote economic development in our shared hometown of Winston-
Salem. Through Lyons' vision, the Downtown Partnership has
worked with the city and other city organizations to
successfully revitalize our downtown with the help of EPA
programs including brownfield clean-ups and redevelopment plans
that have helped to bring life back to areas of our downtown
that once housed furniture and textile manufacturing
businesses.
Lyons comes to this position at a time when the EPA will be
facing challenges in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and likely
Hurricane Rita. Lyons is known for his vision, his leadership
skills and his ability to bring diverse groups together to find
solutions. His knowledge of how State government implements
Federal funds will be greatly needed as we confront the
environmental cleanup of the Gulf Coast.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the committee favorably
reporting Lyons' nomination and I will be honored to cast my
vote for him when the nomination is considered on the full
Senate floor.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Senator Burr.
I agree with your remarks and I appreciate your coming here
to share them with us.
Senator Domenici, did you want to do an introduction? What
we are doing is for members who want to do that, to accommodate
their schedules, go ahead and do that before we do our opening
statements.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I want to do what best
accommodates you.
You have before you H. Dale Hall, Director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Senator Inhofe. That is correct.
Senator Domenici. Is it appropriate to speak in his behalf?
Senator Inhofe. Yes, it is.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Domenici. I see him there in the front row and I am
not going to bother you and the distinguished Ranking Member
very much because this gentleman doesn't need an awful lot of
introduction.
First of all, he is a professional but I know him because
he has been in my State for a few years, so I have watched him
under very difficult circumstances. When there are very
divergent interests at play and inability to work with them
ends up in a log jam, nobody wins, everybody loses, I found
that he was able to remain true and loyal to the laws, in
particular the one causing extreme confrontation, the
Endangered Species Law, in our State a river and a minnow. He
has been working for quite a bit of time with everybody,
working on that. I must say not on his own but a tribute to
this office with him as a leader, we have resolved most of them
without extreme litigation.
In addition, I have found the people who work for him just
think he is terrific. I think that means something. He is at a
very high level.
The only thing I ask is why in the world he would leave
Albuquerque to come up here and he isn't sure.
Senator Inhofe. That is because there was not a slot open
in Tulsa.
[Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. I think you will never be sorry to
quickly send him to the Senate floor and I hope we don't have
any delays there. We need this position filled. Both of you
know that.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Domenici, let me say to you that
Mr. Hall came to Oklahoma when we had a hearing on a program,
the Partnership in Wildlife Program that has been very, very
successful, and we have been exposed to him because we are in
the district too. I agree with your comments very much. I
appreciate your sharing your comments with us.
Senator Domenici. Thank you for letting me.
Senator Inhofe. What we are doing, Senator Smith, is to
accommodate your schedules because I know they are very busy,
go ahead and make your introduction and then we will proceed
with our hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
Jeffords. I am honored to be here.
Thank you for giving me this time to introduce a fellow
Oregonian and a friend, Sandy Baruah, who is the President's
nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Economic Development.
I first met Sandy in 1993 while I was serving in the Oregon
State Senate and he has always represented the best interests
of my State. Sandy graduated from the University of Oregon and
then earned his MBA from Allama University in our State.
After that, he joined Performance Consulting Group, a
Portland-based corporate consulting firm with clients across
the Nation, including Key Bank, Intel and Walt Disney World. In
2001, he was tapped by President Bush and his Administration to
come to Washington to serve in a senior post at the Commerce
Department. Since that time, Sandy has earned a reputation for
outstanding work. It is no surprise to me and to others that
the President has nominated him for this high honor that brings
him before your committee today.
I should mention that this is Sandy's second tour of duty
in Washington. During the first Bush administration, Sandy
served in appointed positions with the Secretary of Interior
and the Secretary of Labor. Additionally, he held various posts
with our former colleague, Senator Bob Packwood. If Senator
Packwood were here today, I know he would offer words of praise
for Sandy as well.
I know Sandy firsthand, that he is committed to public
service both here in Washington and in our home State. It is my
pleasure to be here on his behalf to express my support, my
friendship for him and to request my colleagues to confirm his
nomination. I know he will serve the President and America
well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Thank you for that fine introduction and we appreciate your
presence here and that means a lot to us.
We will go ahead now and ask that you take your places at
the table. I will have a brief opening statement and I think
Senator Jeffords will also. Is that right, Senator Jeffords?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Good morning. We have a number of great people here, very
significant positions that are to be filled.
We have Sandy Baruah. I have practiced that, Sandy, and I
think I am saying it right.
Mr. Baruah. Yes, you are, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Sandy Baruah is Nominated to be Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. I might add he
is following someone who has done an excellent job. We have had
a chance to talk about that in my office and I have no doubt
that you will carry on that great policy that we have had with
your predecessor.
Dr. George Gray has been nominated to be Assistant
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office
of Research and Development.
Lyons Gray has been nominated by the President to be the
Chief Financial Officer of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Ed McGaffigan has been renominated to serve a third term on
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dale Hall has been nominated by the President to be
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I think you
know this, Dale. I think I recommended you to the President and
as a result of the great experience that we have had, your fine
leadership and your sense of fairness, you are equally popular
with Democrats and Republicans in my State of Oklahoma.
I am also pleased to see Ed McGaffigan renominated to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ed has been a Commissioner since
1996 and has played a key role in making that Commission a much
more effective Agency.
In 1997, I held the first oversight hearing for the NRC in
10 years. At that time, I had become chairman of the Clean Air
Subcommittee and we made several recommendations. Ed has been
there during the transformation we helped promote and I look
forward to seeing him there for another 5 years to help the NRC
deal with the many challenges that lie ahead, and there are
many. There is recognition now that with the energy crisis that
is here, there is no way to survive this crisis without
enhancing nuclear energy. I think everyone realizes that now.
Lyons Gray is the only one with whom I haven't had a chance
to visit but we will correct that very soon. He has been
nominated by the President to be the next CFO for EPA, a
position to which Mr. Gray will bring both talent and
experience. He has corporate management experience as well as
public finance experience, both of which will serve him well as
CFO.
George Gray has been executive director for the Center for
Risk Analysis and a faculty member at Harvard University,
School of Public Health. He has been nominated to be EPA's
Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Research and
Development. He previously served as an instructor in Risk
Analysis at the University's Department of Health Policy and
Management. Earlier in this career, Dr. Gray was a research
associate at the Center for Risk Analysis.
I don't think anyone doubts my commitment to sound science,
something we said from the very first day I became chairman of
this committee 2\1/2\ years ago. It is my hope to work with Dr.
Gray to ensure the EPA is committed to decisions based on sound
science and cost benefit analysis.
Finally, Sandy Baruah has been nominated to be the Commerce
Department's Assistant Secretary for Economic Development. EDA
will be playing a vital role in the reconstruction of the Gulf
States following Hurricane Katrina. It will take both a devoted
and creative leader of EDA to be effective in this task.
We appreciate all of your being here. I personally believe
you are excellent nominees for the positions. The only question
I have is there are two Grays here but there is also one in the
audience. There must be a relationship. Would you share that
with me.
Mr. Lyons Gray. I am proud to introduce my cousin, Boyden,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Your cousin, Boyden. It never occurred to
me you had a cousin. Now we know.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Senator Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to join you in welcoming all the nominees this
afternoon and thank them for their commitment to public
service.
I have had a chance to meet with each of you. Mr. Hall
educated me on catfish farming and Mr. McGaffigan on the
challenges facing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I
appreciate that help.
I think having the two Grays at the EPA might be a little
confusing but hopefully you can work that out and I am sure you
can.
I would also like to thank Sandy Baruah, who took the time
to come to my hometown in Rutland, VT earlier this summer, who
announced a $1 million grant to promote Vermont's wood products
industry. Thank you so much and come again.
Mr. Baruah. I appreciate the invitation.
Senator Jeffords. This innovative partnership with the
Vermont Council on Rural Development is generating much
excitement in my State. It also is a good example of EDA going
the extra step to help revitalize our forest product industry.
Thank you very much. I hope in your capacity at EDA we can
continue to work together on development projects for Vermont.
We have some important nominations to consider this
afternoon, so I will keep this short. Again, thank you for your
willingness to serve and I look forward to hearing from each of
you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in welcoming all
the nominees this afternoon, and to thank them for their commitment to
public service.
I have had the chance to meet with each of you. Mr. Hall educated
me on catfish farming and Mr. McGaffigan on challenges facing the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I think having the two Mr. Grays at the EPA might be a little
confusing, but hopefully you can work that out.
I would also like to thank Sandy Baruah, who took the time to come
to my hometown of Rutland, VT, earlier this summer to announce a $1
million grant to promote Vermont's wood products industry.
This innovative partnership, with the Vermont Council on Rural
Development, is generating much excitement in my State. It is also a
good example of EDA going the extra step to help revitalize our forest
products industry.
I hope that in your new capacity at EDA, we can continue to work
together on development projects for Vermont.
We have some important nominations to consider this afternoon, so I
will keep this short. Again, thank you for your willingness to serve,
and I look forward to hearing more from each of you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Why don't we start over here with you, Mr. Baruah, and we
will go across. Ed, you can be last. Do try to keep within the
5 minutes and your entire statement will be made a part of the
record.
STATEMENT OF SANTANU ``SANDY'' K. BARUAH, NOMINATED TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Baruah. Thank you very much.
I will do better than the 5 minutes. With my statement
submitted, let me simply introduce my wife, Lisa, sitting
behind me.
Senator Inhofe. Hold your hand up, Lisa. We want to know
who he is talking about. And your son?
Mr. Baruah. And my son, Isaac, is with us. I am
particularly happy that he is here. I know he is particularly
happy to be here today because it is one less day of school.
I would like to thank Senator Smith for coming today. I
appreciate his support.
I am certainly honored to be President Bush's nominee to
serve the American people as the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce. I appreciate the committee's consideration and the
many courtesies you and your other members have extended to me.
I look forward to answering any questions about my
background and perspective as it relates to the Department of
Commerce and the Economic Development Administration.
Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gray.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. GRAY, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. George Gray. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, it is an
honor to appear before you today as President Bush's nominee to
be the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at
the EPA.
I am excited about the opportunity to enter public service
and to apply the knowledge that I have gained in the last 20
years to help advance public health and the environment. I am
eager to work with Administrator Johnson and to advance the
mission of the EPA.
I am also proud to announce there are a few more Grays
here, my wife, Ann; my son, Owen; and daughter, Evelyn are with
us today.
Senator Inhofe. Please hold your hands up. I think I know
which you are.
Thank you.
Mr. George Gray. I want you to know first and foremost, I
am a scientist. I am someone who has spent my career working to
apply the principles of science, quantitative analysis and risk
communication in public health. My interests have always been
with the application of knowledge to decisions, how do we put
information to work to do a better job.
This interest led me to graduate study in toxicology, the
science that helps us identify and characterize human health
environmental hazards. Next, I was awarded a fellowship in the
Interdisciplinary Programs in Health at the Harvard School of
Public Health where I learned about the range of scientific
data and knowledge needed to form an important decisions. I
also saw how important careful consideration of the science is
to making good decisions in public health.
While I have studied this approach at the Harvard School of
Public Health for the last 15 years, I believe my knowledge and
training will enhance my ability to work with the dedicated
scientists and professional in ORD to provide scientific and
technological support for EPA's activities.
My work over the last 20 years has been like that in the
Office of Research and Development, both multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary. ORD conducts research analysis on a wide
range of potential hazards, from the health effects of
biological or chemical toxins to water quality to homeland
security. It takes a wide range of expertise to do this, people
working together with different kinds of knowledge and
different kinds of expertise. I believe that more and more our
environmental challenges will require this kind of cooperation
and collaboration among scientific disciplines.
Just to let you know that this is indeed the way I work, I
want to talk briefly about a project I was involved in, the
Harvard Tuskegee Mad Cow Study.
We were asked by the Department of Agriculture to look at
what might happen to the United States if mad cow disease was
introduced to the country. This project involved the
integration of expertise from a variety of disciplines, from
veterinary science to neurobiology to applied mathematics. It
required collaboration with governments, both here in the
United States and abroad, with non-governmental organizations
and with the industry.
Ultimately, this study provided useful information to
inform policy decisions, guide research, and communicate BSE
risks to the public. If I am confirmed, this spirit of
integration and collaboration will guide my efforts at ORD.
I am also a teacher and I am proud of my contributions to
education current and future environmental professionals.
Doctoral students and students in my classes have gone on to
work in academia, in government and in the private sector.
Teaching is also about communicating and I want to take a
moment to talk about that because I believe communication is
the key to successful leadership, successful research, analysis
and protection of human health and the environment. I will
strive to work with all ORD stakeholders to identify important
issues and their scientific bases; I want to help build
understanding of ORD's mission and its actions; and to get
useful scientific information to the hands of decision makers.
ORD has critical responsibility in EPA's mission and if
confirmed, I will bring enthusiasm, I will bring knowledge and
I will bring experience in supporting that role. At the same
time, I will bring a fresh perspective to helping advance
Administrator Steve Johnson's goals of using the best available
scientific information to make decisions and working
collaboratively to find effective solutions to environmental
problems.
I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gray.
STATEMENT OF LYONS GRAY, NOMINATED TO BE CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Lyons Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Jeffords. It is a privilege to appear before you today as the
nominee for Chief Financial Officer of the Environmental
Protection Agency. I would like to thank Senator Burr for his
kind introduction.
I would also like to introduce my family sitting behind me,
my wife, Connie; our daughters, Charlotte and Fraser; our son-
in-law, Cameron; my cousin, Boyden; good friends, Jean
Spaulding and Michael Curley; and the Jim Brady family.
It is a tremendous honor to have been nominated by the
President for the position responsible for safeguarding public
resources, both financial and natural ones. I would like to
thank Administrator Johnson for his faith in recommending me
for this key position.
EPA's staff are well known for their commitment to the
Agency's mission of protecting human health and the
environment. I share their commitment and I pledge to you that
if I have the honor of being confirmed, I will ensure that the
Agency's environmental efforts are supported by sound financial
management on behalf of the American people.
I would like to tell you a bit about some of my experience
I believe would be useful in the job for which you are
considering me.
At the beginning of my career, I worked in sales and
marketing in the private sector and I received an on-the-job
education. With responsibility for introducing a new consumer
product, I had to think through every aspect of the project
from start to finish, from creation through delivery. This
experience in corporate America taught me how to follow through
on a project considering all the relevant financial issues
along with product development and delivery. It gave me a solid
foundation for every step I have taken since.
It prepared me to own my own business. My experience as a
small business owner gave me an appreciation for the energy and
business acumen that are needed to support a successful
concern. If I am confirmed, I hope to bring the same energy and
business sense to supporting EPA's successful operations.
I would be honored if confirmed to the CFO position because
it would allow me to return to the public sector. It was my
great privilege to serve for 13 years in the General Assembly
of North Carolina and during that time, I was fortunate to
serve as a member of the House Finance Committee and as its
chair for 4 years. In that capacity, I participated in every
aspect of the development and oversight of the $14 million
budget for our State. I gained valuable experience in
reconciling a range of priorities, all of them important with
available resources.
I was closely involved in the State's budget process,
especially the work of the conference committee in which
differences were worked out between the State's House and
Senate. This experience has given me a genuine appreciation for
the challenges of decisionmaking when public priorities are in
the balance.
If you honor me with confirmation, I look forward to
working closely with you and the other Members of Congress who
are charged with making similar hard and difficult decisions.
Most recently I have had the opportunity to work in the
non-profit sector. This has allowed me to bring together what I
have learned in both business and the State legislature for the
benefit of my local community. As the president of the Downtown
Winston-Salem Partnership, I led an advocacy group to re-
energize and rebuild what I think of as one of America's
downtown communities, although I admit it is because it is my
hometown.
My responsibilities included the administrative leadership
of the Downtown Foundation which raised funds to create a low
interest loan program providing gap financing for new
restaurants, entertainment venues and shops to get them up and
running. Apart from the great personal satisfaction of giving
back to my community, I also took away from this experience a
greater understanding of how financial and environmental issues
can be addressed together to help revitalize our American
communities.
Finally, it has been my great privilege to serve for the
past 3 years as chairman of the EPA's Environmental Financial
Advisory Board to which Senator Burr referred. It is chartered
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and provides advice
and analysis to the EPA Administrator on how to pay for the
growing cost of environmental protection and how to increase
investment in environmental infrastructure through leveraging
of public and private resources.
I am proud of the Board's work on behalf of the agency, our
principal client, and the financial expertise of the board's
members, Michael Curley being one of them here in attendance,
is truly excellent. The working relationship I have enjoyed
with our DFO, Stan Meiburg, has been equally so.
If I am confirmed as CFO, I know I will have the pleasure
of working with dedicated people who share a commitment to
EPA's mission.
Mr. Chairman, public service is a gift we give back to our
country and I am grateful for your time today and for the
committee's consideration of my nomination. I would be pleased
to answer any questions.
Senator Inhofe. Before going on to you, Mr. Hall, we have
been joined by Senator Chafee. He has an acquaintance with one
of our nominees and I would like to recognize him to express
himself at this time.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
I am here to support all of your nominations but in
particular, George Gray whose brother is a prominent attorney
in Rhode Island. Congratulations and best wishes.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF H. DALE HALL, NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
It really is a great honor for me to be nominated by the
President to be the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service
and for this committee to hear my qualifications to lead the
Nation's premier fish and wildlife agency. If confirmed, I
pledge to respectfully and responsibly reserve and promote our
Nation's fish and wildlife conservation heritage.
I am a 27-year veteran of the Fish and Wildlife Service and
for the past 4 years, have been the regional director in the
southwest United States which includes Oklahoma, Texas, New
Mexico and Arizona, but throughout my career, I have had the
opportunity to work all over the United States in various
regions on different issues.
The partnerships and relationships I have formed over those
years have resulted in the support of my nomination by the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the
Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission.
I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology and
Chemistry from Cumberland College in Williamsburg, KY and a
Master of Science Degree in Fisheries Science from Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
As a native of Harlan County, KY, I grew up in the arms of
the Cumberland Plateau of the Appalachian Mountains where
hunting and fishing was a part of life, not simply a
recreational pursuit. This culture instilled in me an
understanding that the Creator has given us the gifts necessary
to sustain our lives but also the responsibility to ensure the
care and the stewardship of those gifts.
During my career, I have had the good fortune to work in
the lower Mississippi River Valley on bottom land, hardwood
wetlands, the northwest on the forest plan and the issues
there, the California Bay Delta, the Everglades, the Rio Grande
and the Missouri River. In all of those efforts, one thing has
come clear to me. The single most important lesson I have
learned is that long-standing solutions to natural resource
problems are not found in the use of governmental power alone.
Rather, long-term solutions must always have a foundation built
upon collaboration with all interested constituents.
Those interests are almost always in conflict and diverse
but that diversity is the very source of long-term solutions.
By listening to people's fears and concerns, truly listening
and then responding to those, answers are found that would not
otherwise be found.
I worked on the ground in fisheries, as Senator Jeffords
mentioned a moment ago. I started out as a private catfish
farmer in the Delta of Mississippi. Later in my career, I found
myself as the Deputy Fisheries Officer for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service overseeing hatchery policies and fundings.
I have also worked with tribes and States across the
country on the management and partnership and managing those
resources.
I have been involved in the National Wildlife Refuge system
and formation of refuges such as the Tensau River National
Wildlife Refuge and I have also been involved in migratory
birds and a myriad of other issues across the country.
Partnerships come from sportsmen, from fishermen and from
private landowners. They are our most important constituents
and have been the most long-standing conservationists. With
them, we must recognize the new partners, the non-governmental
organizations and the environmental organizations that work
together with the sportsmen and the landowners who own 70
percent of the fish and wildlife habitat in the United States.
If we are going to leave a long-term heritage for our future,
we must understand that 70 percent of that potential rests in
private hands and we must go to them and treat them as
partners.
Finally, I would like to point out that the future of this
Nation's natural resources is in the hands of our most trusted
and most valuable asset, the youth of America. We must reach
out, I believe, and if I am honored to be confirmed, I will
support strong activities to bring classrooms to national
wildlife refuges and bring our employees into the classrooms so
that we have the kind of natural resource legacy passed on and
understood that needs to be.
These children are who we work for and their children are
who we work for. If I am honored to be confirmed, I will
constantly try to live up to the privilege of serving that
constituency.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Commissioner McGaffigan.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER
OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. McGaffigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
very brief.
I appreciate the kindnesses shown to me by the members in
my courtesy calls. I am a well-known commodity to the
committee. I truly do appreciate the oversight that Senator
Inhofe initiated after a 10-year break during my second year on
the Commission. We have benefited from it, we have benefited as
a commission from the energy legislation and I know both
Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords were key players in having
that legislation enacted back in August.
I have been away from the Commission for 3 months, but I
have kept up and I am anxious to get back. I am honored to be
nominated by the President.
I also want to express appreciation to Senator Reid of
Nevada and Senator Bingaman, my former boss, for advancing me
in the process of being a Democratic member of the Commission.
We don't have Democratic and Republican differences on the
Commission. I used to joke when there was a different
leadership, we were lucky that Senator Daschle and Senator Dole
did not have positions on some of these highly technical
issues. We do the best we can. I have 30 years of Federal
experience. I was once a scientist a long time ago but not
particularly relevant to NRC, in elementary particle physics.
I have teed up one issue in my prepared statement, the
management challenge we face in the coming 5 years. There is a
bow wave of new activity for the Commission and there is a bow
wave of people leaving the Commission at the senior career
level.
I would be happy to answer any questions. I appreciate the
support of the committee and am prepared to answer any
questions.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Commissioner McGaffigan.
We have been joined by Senator Thune. Senator Thune, we
have done brief opening statements and have now heard from each
of the five nominees. Is there any statement you would like to
make prior to our questions?
Senator Thune. No statement, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to welcome all the nominees today and will
look forward to working with them.
Senator Inhofe. I will start off and be fairly brief
because I have extensive conversations with four out of the
five of you and will correct the other one shortly.
Mr. Hall, as you probably know, I did personally go to the
President on this because I watched you perform in the region.
I am particularly impressed with our partnership in
conservation programs that we have had. In fact, the field
hearing we had in Tulsa brought in the landowners and they
raved about what we can do working together as opposed to some
bureaucratic mandate. That is what we want to do. I remember so
well hearing the testimony of landowner after landowner and the
successes they have had.
I do hear that we are not inclusive of the stakeholders in
considering issues on the endangered species. I would ask if
you have any thoughts on how you can bring those successes in
partnership to that process?
Mr. Hall. I appreciate that Mr. Chairman and thank you for
that question.
I believe that we have more opportunities than we are
exercising to bring all parties that can contribute. If you
look at the objective, the purposes of the Endangered Species
Act, it is to conserve ecosystems and threatened and endangered
species that depend on those ecosystems.
If we step and look again, as I pointed out in my opening
comments, 70 percent of all fish and wildlife habitat in the
United States is in private hands, we need to do more reaching
out to those partners. What I have learned, and you alluded to
in the comments we received, landowners want to work with us,
they want to improve habitat, they want to have endangered and
threatened species on their property. They simply don't want to
be punished for it.
We need to work more with them in giving them some
protections against regulation because they are willing to step
and be volunteers.
Out of the 18 sections of the Endangered Species Act, using
it as an example, only two sections have prohibitions or
penalties. All other sections direct us to work with other
people to try and find solutions before regulation is
necessary. I believe working with private landowners, the State
agencies, the tribes and other partners is the real approach to
try and get there.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that and we have seen that in
action.
Mr. George Gray, and we will have to do it that way since
we have two Grays, on this committee, quite often we will be
talking in terms of absolute numbers, x number of people are
going to die and when you address this risk discussion, it
would seem to me we would be much better at talking about
ranges of risks. I would just ask you the question, do you
believe the EPA should do a better job of clearly stating the
range of uncertainty and what else can be done to better
communicate that risk to the public?
Mr. George Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an
important and insightful question.
My answer in short is yes. One of the things I think is
important for all of us who use science and want to make sure
it is characterized adequately is to be suitably humble. We
have to be humble about what we know and don't know.
Senator Inhofe. I love to hear that.
Mr. George Gray. I think part of being humble is not acting
like there is one single right answer that comes out of our
processes, recognizing there are ranges. Those ranges are
important for two reasons. One is the range helps us understand
how well we know something and how big a problem we have, but
also tells us where more information can help us learn more and
make better decisions.
For both of those reasons, I think you are exactly right.
We need to do a better job of actually quantifying the
uncertainty in all of our estimates of risk.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
I have just been notified that we will have three
consecutive votes that begin in 5 minutes but they will hold
the first one open. It would be my desire, Senator Jeffords, if
you agree, that we kind of hurry along our questions and be
able to conclude this prior to dismissing for the vote.
Senator Jeffords. I will do my best.
Senator Inhofe. Commissioner McGaffigan, you are kind of a
proven number but you also come with your experience
recognizing, as you were nice enough to say, when we first
started doing oversight in 1996, right now you will get into an
aggressive area. We are going to have to have as we resolve the
problems there with the energy crisis we have, nuclear energy
is going to be an important part of that.
I would, first, ask you what we can do to assist you in
this because this is going to be something that is going to
take a lot of personnel. I would like to ask what assistance we
can be to you in this effort?
Mr. McGaffigan. Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Jeffords, and
particularly Senator Voinovich, in the Energy bill gave us just
about every management tool that we could think of. Now I think
the job is for us to make use of those tools.
I think the continued oversight either by you or by Senator
Voinovich's subcommittee of our activities would be very
useful. Are we using all the tools you have given us? We are
going to be hiring 350 people next year. That means a year from
now 10 percent of our work force, more than 10 percent, is
going to be new to the Commission. We have to make sure they
are trained well because we really do face a lot of additional
activity as various applicants come forth for nuclear combined
operating licenses.
Senator Inhofe. In deference to time, Mr. Lyons Gray, you
are familiar with what we have done, the effort I have been
involved in with discretionary grants. I would just ask if you
would be fully cooperative in pursuing this so that we are
getting grants to the places that should receive grants and in
the best interest of our functions?
Mr. Lyons Gray. Absolutely, Senator, and looking forward to
working with you on that.
Senator Inhofe. That would be great.
Mr. Baruah, have you given any thought to what your role is
going to be post-Katrina and now post-Rita?
Mr. Baruah. Yes, Mr. Chairman. EDA can offer a range of
options so it is really up to the Congress to decide what they
would like us to do. We have played a major role in major
disasters and we have many tools available ranging from
infrastructure to strategy planning to various other tools. It
is actually the Congress who tells us what we should do.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. I appreciate that.
Staff has reminded me I neglected to ask you the required
two questions and I would ask each of you to respond to each of
these two.
Are you willing to appear at the request of any duly
constituted committee of Congress as a witness?
[All nominees respond in the affirmative.]
Senator Inhofe. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed that might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed to this position?
[All nominees respond in the negative.]
Senator Inhofe. Senator Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Baruah, the United States lags far
behind other nations in utilization of broadband technology.
The private sector is not stepping up to the plate in many
rural areas. What role do you think the public sector should
play in wiring rural areas and in particular, what can EDA do
to speed up the process?
Mr. Baruah. Senator Jeffords, I agree with your emphasis on
how important broadband deployment is to America's communities,
especially America's rural communities.
In terms of the Federal lead, that is actually given to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture which has a broadband deployment
program. In addition to that, EDA can assist in broadband
deployment and we have. We have done several broadband
deployments. I think just last year, we did one in rural
Virginia and another in New Mexico as well.
So we have played a role and we are happy to work with
rural areas to see if we have a unique resource that the USDA
does not have in rural deployment of broadband.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. George Gray, do you believe based on the best available
science, that climate change is a result of human activity?
Mr. George Gray. Well, Senator, we know there is a lot of
research going on looking at different factors involved in
climate change. We know it is something that has always been
changing, we know what some of the factors are and we don't
know what all the others are. I think it is a situation in
which we know certain contributions could come from human
activity. We don't necessarily know the magnitude of those
compared to the other factors but ongoing research is going to
help us to understand and characterize that better.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Lyons Gray, as you have discussed
with my staff, I feel it is very important that this committee
be given timely data and information on EPA's budget. Will you
do all you can to see this is done?
Mr. Lyons Gray. Yes, sir. My own philosophy is one of being
open and candid and forthcoming and to the degree that we can,
we will do our best to give you the timely information that
helps you make decisions--tough decisions.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. I look forward to that.
Mr. Hall, as a fisheries biologist and wetlands ecologist
with extensive experience in various regions of the country
including the Gulf Coast, I am interested in your insight on
how we should be looking at the wetlands restoration in the
Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?
Mr. Hall. I know there are a lot of people looking at this
issue but one of the things I find encouraging is the
recognition that has surfaced of the value of wetlands in
buffering storms like this. There have been a lot of
discussions going on lately that has been in the literature
over the years.
Having coastal marshes off Louisiana is not simply
something that is really good for shellfish production, shrimp
production and fish production and water fowl but it actually
has served over time to be good storm buffers.
I believe as we move forward and if I am privileged to be
confirmed, I would try and advocate that the creation of
marshlands, barrier islands and other such structures that have
historically been there to help the people in all aspects, both
economic and natural resources, be considered part of the
reconstruction for storm abatement, not just for mitigation.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. McGaffigan, it is good to see you again.
Mr. McGaffigan. It is good to be here, sir.
Senator Jeffords. When we met we discussed the Commission's
ability to process a Yucca Mountain permit application and the
Department of Energy's ability to produce one. For the NRC,
processing any Yucca Mountain permit would require adding new
expertise to the Commission that it has not traditionally had.
Will you share with the committee on that issue as to what we
should do to perhaps rectify problems?
Mr. McGaffigan. I think the Commission has done a good job
of anticipating the Yucca Mountain application. We have a group
of people in San Antonio, TX, the Center for Nuclear Waste
Regulatory Analysis, who are the experts along with our staff.
They have been put together to aid the hearing.
We have also created a licensing support network that is a
discovery tool. This will be an adjudicatory process, a full
blown trial like in a district court, and there are 40 million
pages of documents to be entered by various parties to the
proceeding. I believe it will be the most complex
administrative proceeding in the history of mankind if DOE gets
the application to NRC sometime next year.
We have been preparing for this for a long time. We have a
statutory mandate to try to complete the first hearing in 3 to
4 years. I do want to remind the committee that there is a
second hearing on the license to receive and emplace waste.
That second hearing will be another long haul.
What I have said privately is it was Admiral Watkins when
he was Secretary of Energy who suggested a 10-year time scale
from the first application to opening Yucca Mountain and that
is probably about right which means if we get an application
next year, it could well be 2016 before the second trial is
over.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
They are holding a vote for us now, so I think we have had
an opportunity to hear from you. I appreciate your time, your
coming, your willingness to serve and we will be looking
forward to taking the next step in serving with you.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.]
Statement of Santanu K. Baruah, Nominated to be the Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Economic Development
I am pleased to appear before you as the President's nominee to
become Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. I am
deeply honored to be President Bush's nominee for this post and
grateful for the opportunity to serve. I also very much appreciate
Commerce Secretary Gutierrez's leadership and his confidence and
support.
Before I begin, please allow me to introduce the most important
people in my life. My wife, Lisa, is with me today along with our son,
Isaac, who is happy to be here today because it's one less day of
school.
Today, I would like to give you a better sense of what I hope to
accomplish as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic
Development if given that opportunity. Let me begin by stating my
strong commitment to the mission of the Economic Development
Administration. Our mission at EDA is to ``lead the Federal economic
development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness,
preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide
economy.'' We do this by helping to create the right conditions for
economic growth and expanded opportunity. We promote innovation. We
foster entrepreneurship. We enhance competitiveness.
With the support of this committee and the Senate, and the
professional staff of EDA, I am confident that I can build upon the
strong record of accomplishment established by the previous Assistant
Secretary, David A. Sampson, and support Secretary Gutierrez's
commitment to excellence.
After 4 years at the Commerce Department as an EDA senior staff
member--Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Operations and Chief of
Staff--I know that the role of the Assistant Secretary can be broken
down into three primary categories: policy, stewardship and leadership.
From a policy perspective, I intend to maintain EDA's focus on the
creation and retention of higher-skill, higher-wage jobs in America's
economically distressed communities. Under my leadership, if given the
opportunity, EDA will continue to accomplish this by promoting leading-
edge, market-based strategies, encouraging regional and comprehensive
development approaches, and focusing on the critical role the private
sector plays in providing opportunity and creating healthy vibrant
communities.
From a stewardship perspective, it is never far from my mind that
Administration appointees are only temporary custodians of the legacy
we are asked to manage. As all good stewards, we should leave what was
entrusted to us in better condition than we found it. I know that is
the case of my predecessor. EDA is a more efficient and effective
organization than it was 4 years ago. I am proud to have played a role
in this accomplishment.
I am proud that EDA was among the first Federal programs to
implement a robust Balanced Scorecard, and in fact was inducted into
the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame in 2004. The successful development
of this strategy and performance measurement tool has helped EDA
achieve good ratings from the Office of Management and Budget's Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Also, as you know, the Congress reauthorized EDA in 2004. During
the past several years, EDA's job creation efforts have been greatly
strengthened by a pattern of increased private sector leverage of
Federal grant dollars. In fact, EDA's private sector leverage--the
ratio of private sector dollars invested for every EDA investment
dollar--has increased from 9-to-1 to 40-to-1 in the past 4 years. We
understand that an economic development project does not begin to
approach its potential until the private sector is ready, willing and
able to invest in the enterprise--this is how jobs are created.
A large part of stewardship is management. In addition to my 4
years in a senior capacity at EDA, I have a background in management.
Prior to joining President Bush's administration, I was a senior
management consultant with Performance Consulting Group, a successful
corporate management consulting firm with several Fortune 500 clients,
such as Intel, KeyBank, U.S. Bank, Disney World and others. My prior
government service includes staff positions with U.S. Senator Bob
Packwood and service in the Presidential Administration of George H.W.
Bush, with appointed positions in the office of the Secretary of Labor
and the Secretary of the Interior.
From a leadership perspective, the Assistant Secretary has many
responsibilities. From serving as an effective advocate of the
President's agenda, to establishing the highest of ethical standards
for the agency to emulate, to working cooperatively with the Congress,
to reaching out and listening to the people and organizations touched
by EDA's programs, and dealing openly, respectfully and honestly with
EDA's career professional staff. These are all challenges that I do not
take lightly, yet am confident that I am equal to. I believe my
combination of experience in EDA, coupled with my public and private
sector experience make me well qualified to lead EDA.
Leadership will be important as EDA addresses the important
challenges ahead, such as assisting BRAC-impacted communities
transition their economies, helping the Gulf Region rebuild their
economy after the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina, supporting
President Bush's Strengthening America's Communities Initiative, and
continuing to deliver excellent Federal services in an era of modest
financial resources.
Once again, I am honored by President Bush's confidence in me and I
look forward to earning the confidence of this committee and the U.S.
Senate.
I have been richly blessed with family, friends and opportunity. I
am especially thankful for Lisa, for her love and for all the
sacrifices she has made to make my service in the Administration
possible. It has been an honor for both of us. Thank you again for this
opportunity to appear before you today, and for your consideration of
my nomination. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may
have.
______
Responses of Sandy K. Baruah to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) may be
ideally suited to take a proactive role in redeveloping areas such as
the Gulf impacted by natural disasters. What role has EDA played in
Hurricane Katrina relief efforts and looking out 6 months, what do you
think EDA can and should do to get these devastated areas back on their
feet?
Response. EDA has already made available over $8.8 million for
strategy and planning from funds deobligated in Fiscal Year 2005 to
assist in the redevelopment of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
Since Hurricane Katrina struck the affected area, regional members of
EDA's team have been on the ground assessing needs and developing plans
with local officials and business people to begin the long process of
rebuilding.
If Congress appropriates additional funds to EDA as part of the
appropriations bill or a supplemental, those funds can also be used for
capacity building, technical assistance and infrastructure development
for the purpose of revitalizing the Gulf Coast Region.
EDA's disaster recovery program provides assistance to disaster
impacted communities to achieve long-term economic recovery by
augmenting the institutional capacity of local governments with
strategic planning and technical assistance grants. EDA can also
provide funds for new construction and/or pre-disaster improvements to
commercial and industrial facilities and publicly owned infrastructure
to support job retention and creation, private investment and long-term
economic recovery. Finally, EDA can support locally directed mitigation
efforts flowing from a strategy recovery planning process to safeguard
jobs and investment from future disasters.
EDA has a local planning network of sub-regional economic
development planning districts that work with key local officials and a
30 year history of long-term program partnerships with state and local
governments. EDA has played a significant role in helping to fill
program ``gaps'' by packaging assistance with other Federal partners in
previous disasters.
Question 2. I am trying to figure out the impact the enactment of
the proposed investment rate guidelines contained in the just published
interim final rule will have on Vermont and the Nation. I understand
that the Federal matching rate criteria for all EDA investments are
changed in the just published interim final rule. Can you please
provide maps and data that detail the current Federal-local match rates
for EDA district planning grants under the current rules versus the
interim final rule. In addition, can you provide a map showing by
county or census tract the current Federal-local match rate for EDA
public works assistance and one showing the Federal-local match rates
for public works assistance under the interim final rule.
Response. The Investment Rate guidelines reflect the
Administration's commitment to allocate greater resources to areas of
greater economic distress. Indeed, EDA's authorizing statute, the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended
(``PWEDA''), explicitly mandates this priority allocation:
In promulgating rules, regulations, and procedures for
assistance under this title, the Secretary shall ensure that .
. . allocations of assistance under this title are prioritized
to ensure that the level of economic distress of an area,
rather than a preference for a geographic area or a specific
type of economic distress, is the primary factor in allocating
the assistance. PWEDA, Section 206.
The new Investment Rate provisions also reflect the reality of
EDA's practice in determining grant rates over the past 4 years. For
example, in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, 36 percent of EDA
projects received grant rates of less than 50 percent. As EDA's annual
program appropriations have steadily declined since fiscal year 2001,
EDA has focused on maximizing the leverage its assistance produces. In
this respect, EDA's programs have been particularly effective by
consistently producing higher and more beneficial economic outcomes
across the Nation in spite of the application of lower grant rates.
Economic Development Districts each have a unique composition,
making the determination of the appropriate distress level difficult.
Determining a District's distress level requires an analysis and
blending of the distress levels of the member counties and other
political units. EDA is currently evaluating different methodologies.
Question 3. Given that the central mission of EDA is to lead the
Federal Government's economic development agenda, please detail what
you see as key jobs and experiences in your background that will enable
you to serve effectively as head of an organization that has a diverse
and varied role in delivering economic, community and infrastructure
development resources?
Response. I have spent the last 4 years at the Commerce Department
as an EDA senior staff member, first serving as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Program Operations and now serving as Chief of Staff. It
is in these two roles that I have gained first hand knowledge and
experience delivering key development resources. Additionally, having
served in the two roles at EDA, I have engaged with every substantive
issue in which the bureau is involved, whether operational, policy-
focused or management-related. During my tenure at EDA, I have traveled
extensively across America--30 states--to communities served by EDA. I
have visited all of EDA's regional offices several times and have
examined their operations. This has enabled me to witness first hand
EDA's regional staff in action and to fully understand how EDA projects
are developed and executed.
In addition to my 4 years in a senior capacity at EDA, I have a
background in management. Prior to joining President Bush's
Administration, I was a senior management consultant with Performance
Consulting Group, a successful corporate management consulting firm
with several Fortune 500 clients, such as Intel, KeyBank, Citizens
Bank, Disney World and others. My prior government service includes
staff positions with U.S. Senator Bob Packwood and service in the
Presidential Administration of George H. W. Bush, with appointed
positions in the office of the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
the Interior.
Question 4. It is my understanding that 2 years ago, EDA
headquarters underwent a fifty percent staff reduction to, in part,
place more staff and resources at the regional and field levels. Now, I
understand that EDA is undergoing or contemplating a reduction in field
personnel. Please provide me with staffing levels for the regions and
headquarters since fiscal year 2003. In addition, please provide me
with details of any additional planned staff cuts in either the regions
or headquarters and a justification for such cuts.
Response. EDA implemented a restructuring of its headquarters
organization in March of 2004. Through this restructuring, EDA
streamlined its headquarters organization with fewer supervisors and
reduced staff levels. Employees with the requisite skills to support
regional operations now staff headquarters more effectively and
efficiently. The new headquarters structure enables EDA to deploy its
human resources more effectively and efficiently to support an
organization that is citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-
based. The staffing in headquarters was reduced to 71 authorized FTE, a
reduction of 22 FTE (23 percent) from the on-board level in September
1999.
In January, 2003, EDA had 223 staff on board: 74 in headquarters
and 149 in the regions. EDA will commence operations in fiscal year
2006 with 48 staff in headquarters and 122 staff in the regions. Fiscal
year 2006 appropriations will determine the staffing level that EDA
will be able to support in the future. In line with the President's
Management Agenda, EDA is dedicated to keeping its resources close to
the customer. If the House Mark is passed, EDA anticipates additional
staff reductions. If the Senate Mark is passed, EDA will have
sufficient funds to maintain the overall staff level achieved by the
recent buyouts.
However, it is important to note that at the close of fiscal year
1999, EDA had 267 people--94 in HQ and 173 in the regions. EDA
headquarters has shrunk by 49 percent, while our regions have shrunk by
29 percent. EDA cannot continue to operate using the structure and
processes developed in the 1970's and 80's that require resources no
longer available to us.
In fiscal year 2006, EDA's challenge is to look internally to
determine how EDA can evolve to sustain its high level of customer
service but continue to operate within available resources. EDA must
focus its attention on utilizing automation and information technology,
and target its resources on those steps of the process where human
involvement will provide the most value. EDA will need to place its
resources strategically to ensure that critical customer support is
maintained while critical elements of our program are adequately
managed and monitored. I look forward to working with you as we engage
in this process.
Question 5. The interim final rule promulgated by the agency
transforms the board makeup of district organizations from majority
representation of public officials to majority representation of
private sector officials. I understand that this requirement does not
apply if state or local law requires that Economic Development District
boards maintain majority public sector representation. Please identify
for me those states that require Economic Development District boards
to have majority public official representation.
Response. EDA has heard and understood clearly from Congress and
public comments on the Interim Final Rule (IFR) that revision of this
provision is of fundamental importance to EDA stakeholders. EDA has
therefore committed to working with its stakeholders to produce a Final
Rule that addresses these concerns while maintaining a commitment to
the public-private partnership that constitutes the necessary
foundation of successful economic development. To manifest this
commitment, EDA published on September 30th in the Federal Register a
notice that delays for 45 days the effective date of this provision in
the IFR, as well as the provisions pertaining to Investment Rate
determination for its Planning Investments. EDA is also extending the
public comment period for the entire IFR during this period. While EDA
cannot commit to specific changes separate and apart from the
regulatory process, the bureau pledges to work diligently with its
stakeholders to understand and address their concerns.
In the short amount of time allotted, EDA researched state and
local laws and consulted with EDA stakeholders to formulate the answer
to this question. To the best of our knowledge, the following states
require or enable majority public official representation for Economic
Development District boards: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana (for regional planning commissions formed in urbanized areas
with a population greater than 50,000 persons), Maryland, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota (where an
administrative or separate legal entity is formed pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement), Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West
Virginia.
Please note that the same response is given to Senator Clinton No.
2 and Senator Voinovich No. 1.
Question 6. Under the proposed interim final rule, ``EDA will fund
a Planning Organization's or District's administrative expenses, so
long as it can demonstrate that those expenses are attributable to
developing and implementing their strategies. Does the agency feel
expenses such as rent or insurance that are incurred during the routine
operation of a planning organization or district are legitimate and
necessary to the development of a Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS) and would thereby be an allowable expense under the
planning grant program?
Response. As the quoted provision (IFR Section 303.5) states
explicitly, EDA recognizes that incurrence and reimbursement of
administrative expenses such as insurance and rent will necessarily
occur as part of its Planning Investments. The legitimacy of any
Planning Investment expenses will be determined: (i) in accordance with
applicable Federal cost principles; (ii) pursuant to an agreed scope of
work for direct costs; and (iii) for indirect costs, as those costs are
anticipated and integrated as part of a comprehensive CEDS budget.
Please note that the same response is given to Senator Clinton #4.
______
Responses of Sandy K. Baruah to Additional Questions from Senator
Chafee
Question 1. The President has sought to expand the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) by consolidating other economic
programs like Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Economic
Development Initiative into EDA. This has run into a lot of opposition
on Capitol Hill. I am concerned particularly about CDBG, which is based
at HUD and has a specific focus on community. Where does the
President's plan for expanding EDA currently stand?
Response. Let me begin by reiterating what I have shared with your
colleagues over the last few weeks: I have been nominated to be the
Assistant Secretary for Economic Development. Subsequently, if
confirmed, the operations and policies of the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) will be my focus. If, by an act of Congress, the
Strengthening America's Communities Initiative (SACI) came to pass, the
President would make a separate nomination for that post.
President Bush's SACI proposal is not an expansion of EDA or any
other existing Federal program. His fiscal year 2006 budget recommends
the consolidation of funding for 18 community and economic development
grant programs (including EDA and HUD's CDBG) into an entirely new
program to be housed at the Department of Commerce. If the initiative
is enacted, EDA would close out operations as the new entity is
established.
SACI is a bold proposal that, for the first time in a generation,
reforms the way the Federal Government addresses the critical community
and economic development needs of America's rural and urban areas. As
presented in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget, SACI would carry
over the vast majority of grant authorities that exist in the current
18 community and economic development programs. The Administration
understands the popularity of the efforts supported by HUD's CDBG
program; those efforts will likely still be eligible under SACI as
proposed.
Question 2. As the new Director, how would you go about leading an
agency in transition? Further, I have heard that there are a number of
senior EDA civil servants that have left the agency in the recent past.
What are you doing to make sure the level of expertise and competence
at the agency remains high?
Response. As the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development
responsible for the administration of the Economic Development
Administration (EDA), I will concentrate on EDA's mission to lead the
Federal agenda for economic development by promoting innovation and
competitiveness. During a time of tight Federal budgets, EDA's
challenge will be to maintain program performance and customer service
levels with reduced fiscal and human resources. EDA's leaders and
managers will need to be flexible and innovative in order to accomplish
these goals and to keep EDA personnel energized and motivated.
EDA faces special challenges this year, including carrying out the
requirements of Executive Order 12788 to assist communities impacted by
BRAC. It is also likely that EDA will be called upon to expand our
economic recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast.
Although a number of civil servants left headquarters during the
headquarters restructuring, EDA ensured that those employees who
remained maintained EDA's high level of service. EDA is ensuring that
existing staff are cross-trained and positioned to absorb the functions
performed by retiring staff members. In addition, EDA will continue to
re-examine our processes and organization structures in order to best
utilize human capital and to maintain our well deserved reputation for
high levels of customer service.
______
Responses of Sandy K. Baruah to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. What resources do you believe EDA will need to help
communities affected by the BRAC process?
Response. In 1992, EDA was provided $50 million to respond to the
BRAC rounds of 1988 and 1991. These funds were primarily used for reuse
strategy development and planning. In 1993, EDA was provided $80
million, and in 1994, EDA was appropriated another $80 million, for
strategy development, planning, technical assistance and infrastructure
implementation projects. In fiscal year 2006, EDA will assist BRAC
communities to the extent its resources allow, and again, will focus on
strategy development and planning. The President's Budget for fiscal
year 2007 is still in development and funding for BRAC impacted
communities is part of these budget discussions.
Question 2. What strategies do you have for revitalizing rural
communities? Do you believe the current private sector leveraging
ratios are appropriate to execute such strategies?
Response. Yes, we believe that the current private sector
leveraging ratios for our applicants are appropriate. Currently, EDA's
target leveraging ratio for investments is 22 private sector dollars
for each EDA dollar invested (22 to 1). In recent history, the actual
ratio for EDA's investment portfolio has been approximately 40 to 1--
nearly twice EDA's target. Furthermore, historically and currently,
between 50 percent to 60 percent of all EDA investments are made in
rural areas. The target and actual ratios of private sector leverage,
combined with the percentage of investments made in rural communities,
demonstrate that the private sector leveraging ratios required by EDA
do not preclude rural communities from becoming investment partners.
Additionally, all six EDA regions have met 95 percent or more of their
targets on the EDA Balanced Scorecard for this measure, indicating that
the goal is achievable throughout the country.
EDA is keenly focused on the economic development needs and
challenges facing rural communities and maintains several partnerships
with domestic and international thought leaders on rural development.
We appreciate the unique challenges facing rural communities.
Difficulty raising investment capital, lower tax bases and unique
infrastructure needs all play a major role in informing our approach to
rural applicants. It is our intent to continue our emphasis on rural
economic development and improve upon it by encouraging rural
applicants to take advantage of their competitive advantages and to
work in regional partnerships to access greater financial, human and
political resources.
EDA works closely with Dr. Mark Drabenstott, Director of the Center
for the Study of Rural America and Vice President of the Federal
Reserve Bank--Kansas City. EDA also works closely with Dr. Michael E.
Porter, the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at the Harvard
Business School. Dr. Porter founded the Institute for Strategy and
Competitiveness and his work on such topics as clusters of innovation
and regional competitiveness have become the foundation for much of
EDA's strategy for assisting rural communities. Furthermore, in order
to assess and analyze the special needs of rural communities, and
improve on existing approaches to rural economic development, EDA has
recently released a Federal Funding Opportunity notice requesting
research proposals to address Rural Clusters of Innovation. We
anticipate the award of a grant or grants in the near future.
Question 3. How much money has EDA spent promoting the
Strengthening America's Communities Initiative?
Response. EDA has incurred expenditures associated with the
Strengthening America's Communities Advisory Committee, which was
established pursuant to a February 9, 2005 request letter from the
White House Domestic Policy Council to the Secretary of Commerce under
the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended
(``FACA'') (5 U.S.C. App. 2).
The objectives and duties of the Committee are to provide advice
and recommendations to the Secretary, and to develop a comprehensive
written report to help inform the Administration and shape the policy
parameters of the President's Strengthening America's Communities
Initiative. The Committee's report provides new and innovative thinking
on the future of economic and community development and asks how the
Federal Government can best adapt its programs and approach to the
challenges and opportunities faced by American communities and regions
in the 21st Century worldwide economy.
Costs related to the Advisory Committee during fiscal year 2005
totaled $135,002. Other costs associated with SACI include staff travel
and per diem, a satellite broadcast funded through an information
dissemination grant, publication and miscellaneous expenses totaling
approximately $100,000.
Question 4. If the administration's budget again proposes the
Strengthening America's Communities Initiative, will EDA continue to
solicit funding proposals until Congress acts on the SACI proposal?
Response. EDA cannot speak for the President in advance of his
budget request to Congress that will occur February 2006. If funds are
appropriated for EDA's programs, we will of course fulfill our
responsibilities under law. The Department of Commerce and EDA will
continue to support and advocate initiatives proposed by the President.
______
Responses of Sandy K. Baruah to Additional Questions from
Senator Clinton
Question 1. Why did the agency reference the Strengthening
America's Communities Initiative (SACI) in the opening of the interim
final rules? Is there any connection between these rules and SACI? What
will be your role in promoting SACI?
Response. The mention of SACI appears in the introduction to EDA's
Interim Final Rule (IFR), not in the IFR itself. This appearance was an
explicit recognition of this Presidential initiative. If the SACI
proposal were enacted by Congress, it would consolidate funding for 18
existing programs, including EDA and therefore eventually eliminate EDA
program funding. In spite of this possibility, the introduction to the
IFR cites several reasons for the promulgation of amended regulations.
The fourth specific reason states that, ``it would be necessary for new
Investments pursuant to appropriations for Fiscal Year 2006 that
Congress may enact.''
To be clear, I have been nominated by the President to serve as the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. If confirmed,
I recognize that my role will be to manage EDA and to be a steward of
its programs and resources--to position EDA for the future. As an
appointee, my role is also to contribute positively to the policy
formulation process, to help shape new initiatives as requested by the
President and Secretary of Commerce and to advance the President's
policy agenda.
Question 2. The interim final rule promulgated by the agency
transforms the board makeup of district organizations from majority
representation of public officials to majority representation of
private sector officials. I understand that this requirement does not
apply if state or local law requires that Economic Development District
boards maintain majority public sector representation. Please identify
those states that require Economic Development District boards to have
majority public official representation.
Response. EDA has heard and understood clearly from Congress and
public comments on the Interim Final Rule (IFR) that revision of this
provision is of fundamental importance to EDA stakeholders. EDA has
therefore committed to working with its stakeholders to produce a Final
Rule that addresses these concerns while maintaining a commitment to
the public-private partnership that constitutes the necessary
foundation of successful economic development. To manifest this
commitment, EDA published on September 30th in the Federal Register a
notice that delays for 45 days the effective date of this provision in
the IFR, as well as the provisions pertaining to Investment Rate
determination for its Planning Investments. EDA is also extending the
public comment period for the entire IFR during this period. While EDA
cannot commit to specific changes separate and apart from the
regulatory process, the bureau pledges to work diligently with its
stakeholders to understand and address their concerns.
In the short amount of time allotted, EDA researched state and
local laws and consulted with EDA stakeholders to formulate the answer
to this question. To the best of our knowledge, the following states
require or enable majority public official representation for Economic
Development District boards: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana (for regional planning commissions formed in urbanized areas
with a population greater than 50,000 persons), Maryland, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota (where an
administrative or separate legal entity is formed pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement) Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Please note that the same response is given to Senator
Jeffords #5 and Voinovich #1.
Question 3. There has been significant discussion that the interim
final rule will eliminate the existing functions and operations of
economic development district organizations, which would appear to
conflict with the intent of reauthorization legislation enacted last
year. '302.4 (Title 13) of the current Federal regulations for EDA is
almost entirely stricken in the interim final rule. The section
specifically provided economic development districts with the ability
to do such things as coordinate and implement economic development
activities in the district, assist local governments in applying for
grant assistance and carry out economic development related research,
planning, implementation and advisory functions. It seems that the only
remaining allowable operation of districts under the interim rule is
the ability to contract out for services. If it is the intention of the
agency to preserve the existing operation and activities of districts,
can you explain why these functions and responsibilities were
eliminated in the rule?
Response. None of the District Organization activities listed in
the question are prohibited in the IFR. EDA intends through the IFR
that District and other Planning Organizations will continue to conduct
these and other activities as contemplated in a comprehensive, well-
considered and feasible Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS), written by the Planning Organization. The CEDS must contain,
among other things, a quantified plan of action for implementing the
CEDS as well as performance measures by which to evaluate the
organization's CEDS implementation.
EDA did not include in its IFR the list of functions and
responsibilities in its former regulations in order to encourage each
Planning Organization to determine independently, creatively and
critically the activities it will undertake through CEDS
implementation. Economic Development Districts throughout our nation
face radically different economic challenges which demand different
responses. For example, the challenge of gradual but substantial out-
migration from rural North Dakota demands a different response from the
challenge of substantial annual population inflows of immigrant labor
into California's Central Valley. Rather than providing a federally
mandated ``one size fits all'' checklist of activities that might be
interpreted as the standard for satisfactory performance of a District
Organization, EDA believes that critical and continuous local
evaluation and re-evaluation of a regionally tailored CEDS will produce
more efficient--and more effective--allocation of each District
Organization's resources, leading to beneficial economic outcomes for
each District.
Please note that the same response is given to Senator Voinovich
#3.
Question 4. I understand that EDA will fund a Planning
Organization's or District's administrative expenses, so long as it can
demonstrate that those expenses are attributable to developing and
implementing their strategies'' (CEDS). Does the agency feel expenses
such as rent or insurance that are incurred during the routine
operation of a planning organization or district are legitimate and
necessary to the development of a Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS) and would thereby be an allowable expense under the
planning grant program?
Response. As the provision (IFR Section 303.5) states explicitly,
EDA recognizes that incurrence and reimbursement of administrative
expenses such as insurance and rent will necessarily occur as part of
its Planning Investments. The legitimacy of any Planning Investment
expenses will be determined: (i) in accordance with applicable Federal
cost principles; (ii) pursuant to an agreed scope of work for direct
costs; and (iii) for indirect costs, as those costs are anticipated and
integrated as part of a comprehensive CEDS budget.
Please note that the same response is given to Senator Jeffords #6.
Question 5. How does EDA plan to monitor and implement the new
rules, in light of the recent 50 percent staff reduction in its
headquarters office and now additional reductions of 50 percent at the
regional and field office level?
Response. EDA's staff levels have decreased from 434 employees in
1985 to 170 or less in 2006--61 percent less. In 1999, EDA was
authorized at 268 FTE, but had insufficient resources to support that
staff level, and consequently initiated extremely austere budget
controls and a reduction of staff through attrition. Additionally, in
2004, EDA executed a headquarters restructuring which further reduced
headquarters staffing and increased efficiency. As funds have continued
to decline, EDA has continued staff reductions through attrition and
just recently, through another buyout. A total of 28 staff members
chose to take a buyout and retire, a 14 percent reduction.
EDA's structure and processes were developed in past decades when
the bureau had more extensive resources. In fiscal year 2006, EDA's
challenge, and my challenge should I be confirmed, is to look
internally to determine how EDA can evolve to sustain its high level of
customer service but continue to operate within its available
resources. EDA must focus its attention on utilizing automation and
information technology, and target its resources on those steps of the
process where human involvement will provide the most value. EDA will
need to strategically place its resources to ensure that critical
customer support is maintained while critical elements of our program
are adequately managed and monitored. I look forward to working with
you as we engage in this process.
Question 6. In fiscal year 2005, Congress authorized $27 million, a
$3 million increase, for the planning program. The extra funds were to
be directed to existing and unfunded economic development districts,
per the 2004 reauthorization act. Did EDA allocate these additional
funds to EDDs? Can the agency provide a list of the organizations that
received extra funding or new funding?
Response. For fiscal year 2005, the additional planning funds were
allocated to each Regional Office which had discretion on how to
utilize the additional funds. EDA Regional Offices used these funds in
a variety of ways, including increases to current EDDs and Indian
Tribes, funding other planning organizations and the awarding of
various short term planning grants.
Please see Attachment A for detailed information by region.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.065
Responses of Sandy K. Baruah to Additional Questions from
Senator Voinovich
Question 1. The interim final rule promulgated by the agency
transforms the board makeup of district organizations from majority
representation of public officials to majority representation of
private sector officials. I understand that this requirement does not
apply if state or local law requires that Economic Development District
boards maintain majority public sector representation. Please identify
those states that require Economic Development District boards to have
majority public official representation.
Response. EDA has heard and understood clearly from Congress and
public comments on the Interim Final Rule (IFR) that revision of this
provision is of fundamental importance to EDA stakeholders. EDA has
therefore committed to working with its stakeholders to produce a Final
Rule that addresses these concerns while maintaining a commitment to
the public-private partnership that constitutes the necessary
foundation of successful economic development. To manifest this
commitment, EDA published on September 30th in the Federal Register a
notice that delays for 45 days the effective date of this provision in
the IFR, as well as the provisions pertaining to Investment Rate
determination for its Planning Investments. EDA is also extending the
public comment period for the entire IFR during this period. While EDA
cannot commit to specific changes separate and apart from the
regulatory process, the bureau pledges to work diligently with its
stakeholders to understand and address their concerns.
In the short amount of time allotted, EDA researched state and
local laws and consulted with EDA stakeholders to formulate the answer
to this question. To the best of our knowledge, the following states
require or enable majority public official representation for Economic
Development District boards: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana (for regional planning commissions formed in urbanized areas
with a population greater than 50,000 persons), Maryland, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, South Dakota (where an
administrative or separate legal entity is formed pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement) Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia.
Please note that the same response is given to Senator Jeffords #5
and Senator Clinton #2.
Question 2. Section 300.2 of the interim final rule defines Private
Sector Representative as a senior management official or executive
holding a key decisionmaking position in a for-profit enterprise. It is
my understanding that for-profit enterprises are ineligible to receive
direct EDA public works or other assistance. In addition, it is my
understanding that eligible recipients of EDA assistance are restricted
to Indian tribes, state and local governments and not-for-profit
organizations. In addition, since it is local governments that have the
responsibility of maintaining local infrastructure, there seems to be a
fundamental contradiction in mandating that for-profit enterprises
control the governance structures of both district organizations and
strategy committees of planning organizations. This appears to be a
contradiction. Can you explain this? Further, since local governments
will no longer serve as majority representatives on the boards of these
organizations, will the private sector be responsible for providing the
local matching funds for EDA planning assistance and public works
investments?
Response. EDA has heard and understood clearly from Congress,
public comments on the IFR and others that revision of this provision
is of fundamental importance to EDA stakeholders. EDA has therefore
committed to working with its stakeholders to produce a Final Rule that
addresses these concerns while maintaining a commitment to the public-
private partnership that constitutes the necessary foundation of
successful economic development. To manifest this commitment, EDA
published on September 30th a Federal Register notice that delays for
45 days the effective date of this provision in the IFR, as well as the
provisions pertaining to Investment Rate determination for its Planning
Investments. EDA is also extending the public comment period for the
entire IFR during this period. While EDA cannot commit to specific
changes separate and apart from the regulatory process, the bureau
pledges to work diligently with its stakeholders to understand and
address their concerns.
In response to the specific questions above, PWEDA explicitly
states that Economic Development Districts are eligible recipients of
EDA assistance, in addition to the entities listed in the question.
EDA's IFR defines those District Organizations as public or non-profit
organizations formed under inter-governmental agreements, State
enabling legislation or a State's non-profit organizational statutes.
The presence of private sector representatives on the District
Organization's governing body, even in a majority, does not change the
organizational character and purpose of that organization.
Moreover, any board member, whether a private sector representative
or public official, generally has a fiduciary duty to the organization,
as set forth in that organization's enabling legislation,
organizational statutes or organizational documents. Public or private
sector representatives, even if they constitute a majority of the
governing body, are required to fulfill that fiduciary duty in spite of
any duty they have to the outside business or governmental entity they
represent.
Every District Organization maintains the flexibility to generate
its matching share from any source it deems appropriate (including
contributions from for-profit entities), so long as the matching share
is available as needed and is not conditioned or encumbered in any way
that would preclude its use consistent with the requirements of EDA
Investment Assistance.
Finally, it is important to recognize that the most effective
economic development strategies are market-based and private sector-
led. At the end of the day, the private sector must be ready, willing
and able to invest in a community in order for economic growth to
occur. Close cooperation and buy-in from the private sector are needed
to ensure that development efforts are best positioned to leverage the
power of the private sector.
Question 3. There has been concern that the interim final rule will
eliminate the existing functions and operations of economic development
district organization, which would appear to conflict with the intent
of reauthorization legislation enacted last year. I understand that EDA
feels it is in complete compliance with the law. However, '302.4 (Title
13) of the current Federal regulations for EDA is almost entirely
stricken in the interim final rule. The section specifically provided
economic development districts with the ability to coordinate and
implement economic development activities in the district, assist local
governments in applying for grant assistance and carry out economic
development related research, planning, implementation and advisory
functions. It seems that the only remaining allowable operation of
districts under the interim rule is the ability to contract out for
services. If it is the intention of the agency to preserve the existing
operation and activities of districts, can you explain why it was
necessary to strike these provisions outlining district core functions
and responsibilities?
Response. None of the District Organization activities listed in
the question are prohibited in the IFR. EDA intends through the IFR
that District and other Planning Organizations will continue to conduct
these and other activities as contemplated in a comprehensive, well-
considered and feasible Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS), written by the Planning Organization. The CEDS must contain,
among other things, a quantified plan of action for implementing the
CEDS as well as performance measures by which to evaluate the
organization's CEDS implementation.
EDA did not include in its IFR the list of functions and
responsibilities in its former regulations in order to encourage each
Planning Organization to determine independently, creatively and
critically the activities it will undertake through CEDS
implementation. Economic Development Districts throughout our nation
face radically different economic challenges which demand different
responses. For example, the challenge of gradual but substantial out-
migration from rural North Dakota demands a different response from the
challenge of substantial annual population inflows of immigrant labor
into California's Central Valley. Rather than providing a federally
mandated ``one-size-fits-all'' checklist of activities that might be
interpreted as the standard for satisfactory performance of a District
Organization, EDA believes that critical and continuous local
evaluation and re-evaluation of a regionally tailored CEDS will produce
more efficient--and more effective--allocation of each District
Organization's resources, leading to beneficial economic outcomes for
each District.
Please note that the same response is given to Senator Clinton #3.
______
Responses of Sandy K. Baruah to Additional Questions from Senator Bond
Question 1. Within the EDA's Interim Final Rule, Section 301, which
includes the investment rate process for determining the Federal and
local match for planning assistance, how will the Census Bureau's
American Community Survey (ACS) prove to be an adequate and efficient
unit for determining the economic distress levels? If ACS contains the
capability to base the need for planning assistance by determining the
investment rate for the Economic Development Districts (EDD), how will
EDA ensure that the Economic Development Districts do not receive a
dramatic increase in their share of the Federal/local match when they
may actually qualify for a larger Federal investment? It is important
to note that many EDDs may not have the capacity to access ACS and
efficiently determine that EDD's lack of economic viability.
Response. The ACS does not in and of itself contain the capability
to determine investment rates for planning or other EDA investment
assistance. Rather, the ACS provides a technologically advanced data
base of U.S. demographic data, continually updated and maintained by
the U.S. Census Bureau to sustain statistical integrity. Where
available, EDA personnel will use ACS demographic data to determine
more precisely the economic distress levels of a particular region.
This is intended to ensure that EDA determines its investment rates
with reference to the most accurate economic data available. Where ACS
data is not available, EDA personnel will use the most reliable Federal
data available, from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
or other Federal source. Absent reliable data from any of these
sources, an applicant will need to provide the most recent economic
data available through the government of the State in which the
project's region is located. EDA's regional office staff will be
available to assist stakeholders in the use of the ACS where necessary.
Question 2. Within the existing regulations for EDA it is required
that 20 percent of the governance board for and Economic Development
District consist of private sector representatives. The EDA Interim
Final Rule suggests that the district organizations and planning
committees must have a majority of private sector representatives. Why
must the governance board of an EDD which has proven to be efficient
alter their current status to fit these regulations? Who will appoint
these additional private sector representatives? What would happen to
the representation of the local officials? As you are aware, the EDA
reauthorization Act of 2004 states that it is necessary for local
officials to maintain an ample representation. Why do you feel that
there is a need to alter this representation?
Response. EDA has heard and understood clearly from Congress,
public commentators on the IFR and others that revision of the District
Organization private sector representation provision is of fundamental
importance to EDA stakeholders. EDA has therefore committed to working
with its stakeholders to produce a Final Rule that addresses these
concerns while maintaining a commitment to the public-private
partnership that constitutes the necessary foundation of successful
economic development. To manifest this commitment, EDA has on September
30 published a Federal Register notice that delays for 45 days the
effective date of this provision in the IFR, as well as the provisions
pertaining to Investment Rate determination for its Planning
Investments. EDA is also extending the public comment period for the
entire IFR during this period. While EDA cannot commit to changes that
it may make to these provisions separate and apart from the regulatory
process, it will engage in extensive discussions with its stakeholders
to understand and address their concerns.
Finally, it is important to recognize that the most effective
economic development strategies are market-based and private sector-
led. At the end of the day, the private sector must be ready, willing
and able to invest in a community in order for economic growth to
occur. Close cooperation and buy-in from the private sector are needed
to ensure that development efforts are best positioned to leverage the
power of the private sector.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.009
Statement of George M. Gray, Ph.D., Nominated to be the Assistant
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear
before you today as President Bush's nominee to be Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I am excited about the
opportunity to enter public service, to work with Administrator Johnson
and to advance the mission of EPA. I am also proud to introduce my wife
Ann and my two children, Owen and Evelyn, who are here with me today.
I am a scientist and I have spent my career working to apply the
principles of science, quantitative analysis and risk communication in
public health. My interests have always been with the application of
science, putting knowledge to work to help make better decisions. This
interest led me to graduate study in toxicology, the science that helps
us identify and characterize human health and environmental hazards.
Next, I was awarded a fellowship in the Interdisciplinary Programs in
Health at the Harvard School of Public Health where I learned about the
range of scientific data and knowledge needed to inform important
decisions. I also saw how important careful consideration and
characterization of scientific information is in public health. I have
studied and taught this approach at the Harvard School of Public Health
for over 15 years. I believe that my training and experience will
enhance my ability to work with the dedicated scientists and
professionals in ORD to advance its charge of providing scientific and
technological support for EPA's activities.
My work over the last 20 years has been, like the task of the ORD,
both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. The ORD conducts research
and analyses on a wide range of potential hazards from the health and
ecological effects of biological and chemical hazards to water quality
to homeland security. It takes the range of expertise in ORD, including
biologists, engineers, physical scientists, mathematicians and
physicians, to understand and characterize risk management solutions. I
believe that more and more our environmental challenges will require
cooperation and collaboration among scientific disciplines.
My approach to addressing important public health and environmental
concerns is to bring together the best information and people, from
multiple disciplines, to provide an integrative solution. For example,
I led the Harvard/Tuskegee BSE (Mad Cow) study commissioned by the USDA
in 1998. Our goal was an evaluation of the potential for BSE to spread
in the United States if it were introduced. This project involved
integration of expertise from many disciplines from veterinary science
to neurobiology to applied mathematics. It required collaboration with
governments (U.S. and abroad), industry, and non-governmental
organizations. Ultimately, our study provided useful information to
inform policy decisions, guide research, and communicate BSE risk to
the public. This spirit of integration and collaboration will guide my
efforts at ORD.
The EPA Office of Research and Development is organized around the
risk assessment/risk management paradigm. I have extensive knowledge of
risk assessment and the careful evaluation of science that is critical
for sound decisions about human health and the environment. This
understanding has given me opportunities to contribute to the
interaction of science and government decisionmaking while serving on
the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council, the
advisory body to the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences and the Food and Drug Administration's Food Advisory
Committee, Contaminants and Natural Toxicants Subcommittee.
I am also a teacher and proud of my contribution to educating
current and future environmental professionals. Doctoral students whom
I have advised and students from my classes have gone on to work in
academia, government, and the private sector. Several come from or
joined the EPA, including the National Center for Environmental
Assessment and Region V. Since 1995 I have developed and directed a
mid-career short course on risk that regularly has a dozen or more
class members from EPA with participants from FDA, USDA, NRC, and OSHA
and numerous foreign countries. The rigor, balance, and practicality
that characterize this course are the same attributes that will guide
my efforts at ORD.
Teaching is also about communicating, and I believe that
communication is key to successful leadership, research, analysis, and
protection of human health and the environment. I will strive to work
with all of ORD's stakeholders to identify important issues and their
scientific basis, to build understanding of ORD's mission and actions,
and to get useful scientific information into the hands of decision
makers. These stakeholders include legislators, the public, other parts
of the government, the scientific community, the private sector and
nongovernmental organizations.
ORD has a critical responsibility in EPA's mission and, if
confirmed, I will bring enthusiasm, knowledge and experience to
supporting that role. At the same time, I will bring a fresh
perspective to helping advance Administrator Steve Johnson's goals of
using the best available scientific information to make decisions and
working collaboratively to find effective solutions to environmental
problems.
Thank you very much for your consideration and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
______
Responses of George Gray to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
had a controversial multi-million dollar contract to enhance it
``strategic communications.'' Some have called this a waste of funds
that should be devoted to research and others have questioned the
legality and propriety of using tax dollars on ``corporate image
enhancement.'' Do you think this was a good use of government funds?
And if confirmed, what actions would you take with respect to this
contract?
Response. Communicating the results of Federally-funded research is
very important to all audiences, including via both technical journals
and other media. Effective communication of research results enables
policymakers--from Agency regulators to individual consumers--to make
informed choices. I am not familiar with the contract you ask about,
but, if confirmed, I will look into this and other ORD communications
activities to ensure they make appropriate and effective use of federal
funds.
Question 2. Do you plan to solicit corporate contributions to
support ORD research and what limitations, if any, do you think are
appropriate in seeking corporate participation in ORD research?
Response. While I am not an expert on the Federal Technology
Transfer Act, I believe this enacted legislation encourages the Federal
government to enter into Cooperative Research and Development
Agreements (CRADAs) with industry, consortia, academia, trade
associations, and state and local agencies. Where mutually beneficial,
if confirmed, I intend to fully utilize this authority while assuring
that research is peer reviewed and meets high ethical standards.
Question 3. Are you familiar with a recent GAO report on the lack
of safeguards within EPA against conflicts of interest in soliciting
corporate research joint ventures? If so, what is your response to this
report? What steps do you intend to take to prevent conflicts of
interest?
Response. I am not familiar with this GAO report, but, if
confirmed, I will work to ensure there are appropriate safeguards
within EPA to protect against conflicts of interest in all respects,
not just in the soliciting of joint research ventures.
Question 4a. In a submission to the Office of Management and Budget
on the subject of Peer Review procedures, you opposed a policy that
required the disqualification of reviewers that had a conflict of
interest:
``I prefer the notion of disclosure of potential conflicts of
interest, including work as an expert witness and institutional
funding, to strict rules of disqualification in the required
agency guidelines (Section 4(b)). Complete and widespread
disclosure will allow interested parties to make judgments
about the appropriateness of reviewers. Although I recognize
that it will sometimes be necessary and appropriate,
disqualification has the potential to raise questions of agency
bias in the choice of experts.''
Do you intend to advocate suspending current conflict of interest
requirements for EPA advisory committees?
Response. I have no plans to change any of the current, widely
accepted conflict of interest requirements for EPA advisory committees.
Question 4b. Can you provide an example of where an exclusion of an
advisory panel member for conflict of interest created the impression
of ``agency bias in the choice of experts''?
Response. Not having participated in any such agency decision, I
cannot provide an example of where the exclusion of an advisory panel
member for conflict of interest reasons created the impression of
Agency bias in the choice of experts.
Question 4c. You concede that it is sometimes ``necessary and
appropriate'' to exclude experts based upon conflicts of interest.
Please describe when, in your judgment, such exclusion is needed.
Response. I believe it is appropriate to exclude a panel member
based upon conflict of interest when one could reasonably assume that
the conflict in question is likely to bias the panel member's review.
Also, in borderline cases it may be most prudent to exclude a reviewer
if the same technical expertise can be provided by another panel member
who does not have a conflict of interest.
Question 4d. Please explain why your more selective use of
conflict-based exclusions does not raise greater concerns about
``agency bias''?
Response. Many, if not all, reviewers will have some potential
conflicts, for example in terms of having received some federal or
industry funding for their work. After all, it is in part through such
funding that they are able to conduct the research that enables them to
become experts. I believe the most important qualification for a peer
reviewer is that he or she is technically well qualified to ably serve
in this important capacity. Complete and widespread disclosure of
potential conflicts of interest, including work as an expert witness
and institutional funding, allows agencies to select the most
technically qualified people to be peer reviewers.
Question 5. According to internal employee surveys, there is a
growing disconnect between scientists and managers within the research
arm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
What steps would you take to rectify this situation?
Response. I am not familiar with the employee survey you cite, but,
if confirmed, I will promote effective communication throughout ORD and
across EPA, not just between scientists and managers.
Question 6. Please describe what measures of success you would want
your tenure at ORD to be judged.
Response. If I am confirmed, I would like my tenure at ORD to be
marked by ORD being recognized for conducting relevant, high quality,
cutting edge research in human health and ecology and that the results
of this research informed environmental decisions both at EPA and
elsewhere.
Question 7. In the past, you have supported centralizing peer
review authority, perhaps in an office such as the Office of Science
and Technology Policy. Is this your current view?
Response. I don't have a position on this matter, but I will look
into ORD's and EPA's current peer review procedures, including the
practicality and value of a centralized peer review authority.
Question 8. In 1998, you testified in a House Hearing on the
Science of Risk Assessment. You stated that ``it is conservatism in
risk assessment that can make us sorry.'' You are now being nominated
to an agency whose mission includes the protection of sensitive
subpopulations.
Do you agree that it is appropriate for EPA to set standards that
are protective of these subpopulations and are there processes that can
improve how these subpopulations are accounted for in risk assessment?
Response. I believe standards can be protective of vulnerable
populations, while at the same time being informed by assessments that
clearly communicate scientific uncertainties and probabilities. If
confirmed as the AA for ORD, I commit to providing the Administrator
and other EPA policymakers with the best risk assessment information I
can, including the risks to different subpopulations and a full
appreciation of the uncertainties inherent in the assessment. I will
also work with the policymakers to set standards consistent with our
existing environmental statutes.
Question 9. At another House hearing in 2003, you stated that
``policy is influencing EPA's science undermining the credibility of
both the science and the decisions.'' However, you also recommended
that the problems with Peer Review and Information Quality Guidelines
could be solved by establishing a centralized body, perhaps in the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, to choose experts to 'referee'
the process to ensure that peer review comments are addressed
appropriately and that the best analysis is made to support important
decisions.
Could you please explain how establishing a body within the White
House would reduce political influence on science and what you would do
if confirmed as head of ORD to shield EPA's scientists from political
pressures?
Response. No matter the organization and structure, care must be
used to select peer reviewers that are technically qualified with no or
disclosed conflicts of interest. Scientists' independence to interpret
data and publish findings is crucial to maintaining scientific
integrity. If confirmed as the AA for ORD, I commit to allowing ORD
scientists to publish their findings consistent with the office's
already rigorous peer review policy.
Question 10. What will you do to improve the timely availability of
scientific information for decision makers without jeopardizing the
quality and credibility of agency analysis and how will you do it in a
way that is useful for the regulatory programs?
Response. One of the reasons I am interested in the position of AA
for ORD is Administrator Johnson's personal commitment to ensuring
strong science informs EPA decisions. In addition to conducting
cutting-edge research, ORD has the responsibility to ensure scientific
information is properly characterized in a timely manner for Agency
policymakers. It does so both by serving on the Agency workgroups that
formulate environmental policy options and by reviewing the scientific
basis for the Agency's final decisions. However, to be relevant,
scientific information should be provided to decision makers in a
timely manner. If confirmed, I will work closely with colleagues across
the agency to ensure ORD is involved early in the decisionmaking
process and continues to perform this critical decision support
function.
Question 11. In order to assure the public that the trading program
for mercury the Administration has issued is actually working, the
Agency will need to devote considerable resources toward developing a
system to monitor changes in mercury emissions, deposition, fish tissue
concentrations and human and wildlife exposures. In addition, when it
issued the regulation, EPA committed to monitoring ``hot spots'' or
areas with high mercury fish tissue levels. While ORD doesn't run
monitoring programs, ORD has a key role to play in designing such a
system and in developing techniques and protocols for monitoring.
However, the mercury budget for ORD is being dramatically cut back in
FY2006 and is almost zero after FY2006. Will you commit to investigate
the commitments for spending on mercury research and development and
maintaining a mercury research budget adequate to support these
activities?
Response. I am not familiar with the Agency's budget for mercury
research in FY 2006 or beyond. However, I am aware that ORD's mercury
research program has greatly contributed to our understanding of
mercury emissions and controls, deposition in waters, and uptake in
fish. While it is not ORD's role to conduct monitoring, I agree that
any mercury monitoring program must be carefully designed and if ORD
can contribute to that design, it should. If confirmed, I will look
into the ORD mercury research budget, and, consistent with other budget
priorities, look to see where it can continue to make contributions.
Question 12. When EPA was developing the mercury regulation for
power plants, it did not look at the cardiovascular impacts of mercury
exposure, even though others have found those impacts to be
substantial. Specifically, research indicates that methyl mercury
attenuates the cardio-protective impacts of fish oils. EPA staff had
been preparing to convene scientists doing research in this area to
advice the Agency on the appropriate use of this new information. That
was abruptly cancelled by EPA political management citing lack of time.
But now, EPA is reconsidering the rule and still no plans have been
made to hold this meeting. Can you assure me that you will authorize
career scientists in the Agency to convene a meeting of researchers who
have published in this area to further advise the Agency?
Response. If confirmed, I will look into this issue, recognizing
that any potential for cardiovascular effects should be examined within
the context of the entire mercury health effects database, and balanced
against the cardiovascular benefits of eating fish.
Question 13. There is some very interesting research that EPA's ORD
in Steubenville, Ohio, showing very high mercury deposition near power
plants. ORD management seems to be delaying the publication of this
research by insisting on an extra level of peer review (in addition to
the usual internal EPA peer review and external prepublication review)
before the work can be submitted to a journal. If the work is to be
considered as part of the reconsideration process, it needs to be
published. Will you assure me that this work will not be subject to
extraordinary review simply to delay its publication?
Response. If confirmed, I will look into this issue. I am a firm
believer in the importance of independent expert review. While assuring
that necessary research is provided in a timely manner to decision
makers.
______
Responses by George Gray to Additional Questions from Senator Clinton
Question 1. Can you please provide detailed information about your
science background, in terms of both education and your professional
career?
Response. See Attached Curriculum Vitae.
Question 2. What areas of environmental science do you think ORD
should focus on over the next several years?
Response. There are many important areas of research I think ORD
should focus on, and if confirmed, I anticipate I will learn of others
when I become more familiar with ORD's research plans. That said, some
examples of research I believe ORD, along with other Agencies, should
contribute to are: particulate matter--sources, effects, and controls;
drinking water and water quality; using genomics and other techniques
to test the potential impacts of new chemicals; using available
observational data to inform national, regional, and local
environmental decisions; emerging issues such as nanotechnology and
decision support tools; and maintenance of the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) database.
Question 3. What research areas do you think EPA should focus on in
order to improve the Agency's emergency response capabilities?
Response. Since September 11, 2001, ORD has developed unique
expertise in the areas of building contamination and protecting water.
I believe ORD should not only continue these areas of focus, but, after
Katrina, should work with other Federal agencies to see how it can
assist in responding to natural disasters in other ways as well. For
example, the Katrina experience reinforces the need for addressing
risks from microbial pathogens.
______
Responses of George Gray to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Do you believe EPA should consider human dosing
experiments with pesticides or other chemicals for regulatory purposes?
If so, what safeguards and constraints would you support?
Response. There are instances where human studies improve our
understanding of the potential effects associated with regulated
substances. Any research conducted by the government or considered by
the government should meet very strong ethical standards, including the
Common Rule, which identifies safeguards and constraints.
Question 2. Do you believe there should be different rules
governing EPA's performance or support of chemical experimentation on
humans versus research conducted by industry? What is your rationale
for any differences?
Response. I believe all research should meet high ethical
standards. As I stated above, it is my understanding that all Federal
agencies, and those researchers conducting studies supported by Federal
agencies, must abide by the Common Rule.
Question 3. Do you support EPA conducting or supporting studies
similar to the controversial CHEERS study recently canceled by EPA?
Response. I understand that Administrator Johnson cancelled the
study. Protecting the health of children is important to me, and I am
interested in engaging in a dialogue on different approaches for
improving our understanding of risks to children.
Question 4. Do you agree that the financial and other incentives
proposed in the CHEERS study could provide a powerful inducement for
subjects to continue pesticide use around infants, particularly when
subjects are recruited in economically disadvantaged areas?
Response. I am not familiar with the financial and other incentives
proposed as part of the cancelled CHEERS study. In general, I believe
that observational studies should include a protocol for informing
participants who are found to be experiencing high exposures. Any
compensation for participation should be established at a level
appropriate for the effort and not one that might encourage potentially
harmful behavior by study participants.
Question 5. Do you believe EPA should increase its reliance on
chemical tests, including pesticide testing, on human subjects, rather
than rely on animal or other models?
Response. Epidemiologic, clinical, and animal studies, together
with modeling, all contribute to our understanding of the potential
effects associated with pollutants and inform environmental
policymaking. I am very encouraged about EPA's computational toxicology
efforts, which are devoted to using genomic and bioinformatics
techniques to reduce testing in both animals and humans.
Question 6. Do you believe that human tests must be statistically
valid to be useful and must involve a sufficient number of subjects to
be scientifically sound?
Response. All studies must be carefully designed to test their
hypothesis within the statistical precision needed to use the study
results. The number of subjects needed relates to the confidence which
is desired to conclude that the effect being tested for is real.
Question 7. Have you ever been involved in a human subject
experiment involving chemical testing? If so, please describe.
Response. While in graduate school, I volunteered to be a subject
in several studies of responses of the respiratory system to air
pollutants.
Question 8. Recently, EPA proposed new rules governing human
testing. The proposal allows EPA to consider testing on pregnant women
and children in some cases. How do you reconcile this with the ban on
the use of these individuals as subjects passed by Congress earlier
this year?
Response. While I have not yet reviewed EPA's proposed new rules
governing human testing in great detail, it is my understanding that
the proposal would not allow intentional dosing of children and
pregnant women. If confirmed, I will ensure that ORD's programs and
practices are consistent with the laws established by Congress.
Question 9. Several EPA scientists have spoken out against EPA's
human testing policies. If confirmed, would you encourage ORD
scientists to internally voice their concerns and publicly voice those
concerns?
Response. If confirmed as the AA for ORD, I would encourage ORD
scientists to share with me their concerns on any matters, so that we
could work together to address them.
Question 10. Do you think neglected or abused children should be
available for use as subjects of chemical tests? Do you believe that
there are any concerns about consent by such children?
Response. It is my understanding that the proposed rule does not
allow intentional dosing of any children and pregnant women. Human
studies should meet high ethical and scientific standards, including
guidelines for consent.
Question 11. Do you believe EPA's proposed rule on intentional
pesticide dosing should be broadened to include prisoners?
Response. Any human studies should meet high ethical and scientific
standards. I look forward to further reviewing the proposal, and if
confirmed, will carefully consider public comments on the proposal
before providing specific recommendations for changes to the rule.
Question 12. In 1998, you testified before the House Science
Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. In this testimony,
you were critical of the use of assumptions that protect public health
during the risk assessment process. EPA uses health-protective
assumptions when implementing many federal public health and
environmental statutes. For example, the Safe Drinking Water Act
integrates the use of safety factors to protect pregnant women and
children during the process of setting drinking water standards. Please
explain whether you agree with using conservative assumptions that
protect public health when there is uncertainty during a standard
setting process under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and other public health and environmental
statutes. If you do not agree, please explain your rationale.
Response. If confirmed as the AA for ORD, I commit to providing the
Administrator and other EPA policymakers with the best risk assessment
information I can, including a full appreciation of the uncertainties
inherent in the assessment. Wherever possible, risk assessments should
be based on data and rely on other techniques only when data isn't
available. In the absence of data, other techniques are available
including expert elicitation, probability analyses, and modeling, in
addition to making assumptions, conservative and otherwise. Whenever
risk assessments are presented to policymakers, it is critical that
risk assessors make known the assumptions and uncertainties in their
assessments and their impact on the assessment's results.
Question 13a. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Whitman v.
American Trucking, 200 U.S. 321 (2001) cemented the principle that
executive agencies may not require public health and environmental
protections to meet cost-benefit analysis standards when the underlying
statute does not require such analysis. Crucial protections to public
health and environmental quality can be severely undercut when agencies
inject speculative cost considerations at multiple points during a
regulatory process.
Do you agree with the principle established in American Trucking?
If not, why not?
Response. I agree with the principle established in American
Trucking that executive agencies may not require public health and
environmental protections to meet cost-benefit analysis standards when
the underlying statute does not require such analysis.
Question 13b. Do you commit to ensure that neither you nor any of
your subordinates support a position that conflicts with the holding in
American Trucking?
Response. As stated above, I agree with the principle established
in American Trucking, and if confirmed, will lead ORD accordingly.
Question 14. On July 25, 2005, the Wall Street Journal reported
that a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that tiny doses
of even common chemicals raise extremely serious health concerns for
children and developing fetuses. If confirmed, do you commit to
examining the health effects on children and developing fetuses of
potential endocrine disrupting chemicals, including perchlorate,
bisphenal A, atrazine and phthalates? If not, why not?
Response. It is my understanding that ORD has a long-standing,
productive research effort devoted to endocrine disrupting chemicals
(EDC). If confirmed, I will look into the ORD EDC research budget, and,
consistent with other budget priorities, look to see where it can
continue to make contributions.
Question 15a. In March of this year, the Environmental Protection
Agency revised their cancer risk guidelines. These guidelines allow the
use of a formal process for outside parties to review EPA's initial
determinations of the likelihood that a substance causes cancer. The
guidelines refer to this process as ``expert elicitation.''
Do you commit to ensuring that all such reviews are transparent and
free of conflict of interests?
Response. As stated above, I believe expert elicitation can be an
important contributor to risk assessment where data are not available.
It is also my understanding that the Agency has used expert
elicitation. Therefore, if confirmed, I will look into the Agency's
existing expert elicitation procedure and see how it addresses the
issues of transparency and conflict of interest.
Question 15b. Do you also commit to ensure that public health
officials and experts without ties to industries that may have a
conflict of interest are the preferred types of individuals to conduct
such reviews? If not, why not?
Response. The best people to serve as experts on an expect
elicitation panel are those who are technically well qualified to do
so. I believe it is appropriate to exclude a panel member based upon
conflict of interest when one could reasonably assume that the conflict
in question is likely to bias the panel member's review. Also, in
borderline cases it may be most prudent to exclude a reviewer if the
same technical expertise can be provided by another panel member who
does not have a conflict of interest.
Question 15c. Please describe the specific steps that you will take
to ensure that the public [h]as an opportunity to substantively comment
on the full range of options considered by any panel of private experts
during the so called, ``expert elicitation'' process.
Response. If confirmed, I will look into the Agency's existing
expert elicitation procedure and see how it addresses the opportunity
for the public to comment during the expert elicitation process. It is
my understanding that the current process allows for the public to see
the different options considered by the panel, without attribution of
any option to a given panel participant.
Question 16a. The media has reported that this administration has
allowed political officials to dictate the presentation or suppress the
dissemination of scientific information on global warming, endangered
species, mercury emissions and other vital public health and
environmental threats. You have an extensive history of working with
industries, on behalf of, and in support of policies advocated by
polluting industries. These same industries are or may be subject to
regulations that rely on data produced by the EPA office that you are
now nominated to lead.
Do you commit to ensure that politics does not play a role in the
development of the Office of Research and Development's research plan
or the office's presentation or dissemination of information? If not,
why not?
Response. If confirmed, I commit that ORD's research plans will be
consistent with EPA's overall research and development priorities and
laws passed by Congress.
Question 16b. Do you commit to take concrete steps to protect EPA
scientists from intimidation? If not, why not? If you do, please
describe the steps that you will undertake to foreclose on such
conflicts of interest.
Response. If confirmed, I will encourage ORD scientists to ``call
it like they see it,'' consistent with ORD's established peer review
policy.
Question 16c. Do you also commit to ensure that individuals who sit
on the National Academies of Sciences review panels do not have
conflicts of interests with industries that could be impacted by
analysis conducted by such panels? If you do, please describe the steps
that you will undertake to foreclose on such conflicts of interest. If
you do not, please explain why you think it is appropriate for
individuals with actual or potential conflicts of interest to serve on
such panels.
Response. I believe it is up to the National Academy of Sciences to
select the members who serve on their review panels, consistent with
their conflict of interest procedures.
Question 17a. The mission of the Office of Research and Development
is to perform research, provide technical support, integrate the work
of the office's scientific partners and to provide leadership in
addressing emerging environmental matters and other issues. The
office's mission is not to establish policy or advocate for particular
policy positions.
Do you commit to not promote particular policy positions in your
role as the head of EPA's Office of Research and Development? If not,
why not?
Response. If confirmed as the AA for ORD, I will leave the policy
choices vested in EPA's program offices, e.g., the selection of a
maximum contaminant goal (MCG) or maximum contaminant level (MCL) for a
drinking water contaminant, to the appropriate program office. However,
I will promote particular policy positions on science policy issues,
e.g., Cancer Guidelines.
Question 17b. Do you commit to immediately alert my office and
other members of Congress about attempts by industries, including
entities who you are or were affiliated with, that urge you to advocate
for a particular policy position? If not, why not?
Response. Should I be placed in the position of being urged by any
advocate--industry, NGO, or other--to promote a particular program
office policy position, I will advise them that their efforts would be
best spent elsewhere. I will report any unethical or illegal conduct to
appropriate federal officials.
Question 18a. The EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
is a key resource for EPA regulatory decisions and is widely used by
regulatory agencies in this and other countries. However, a recent
report by the Center for Progressive Reform notes that IRIS's
assessments are incomplete for a large number of chemicals regulated
under the Clean Air, Safe Drinking Water and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Acts. For example, IRIS is missing information
on more than one-fifth of the Clean Air Act's hazardous air pollutants.
The IRIS data on the other hazardous air pollutants is on average
almost 12 years old.
Do you commit to laying out a plan to speed up the review of IRIS
assessments as head of ORD?
Response. I believe the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
is a key resource for EPA and other policymakers, and, if confirmed,
will look into the schedule for completing future assessments and plans
for revising the IRIS process. I also believe that to be relevant,
scientific information must be provided to decision makers in a timely
manner.
Question 18b. Please explain whether you agree or disagree that
this plan should include an internal review process of eight months to
one year and single or two-stage review process for internal and
external peer review, rather than the current three-stage review
process?
Response. I am not yet prepared to comment on the details of the
IRIS process. However, I am aware that the Agency is considering
revising its IRIS process, and, if confirmed, look forward to learning
more about, and contributing to, the Agency's plans.
Question 18c. Do you commit to focusing the review of new chemicals
on substances that are a high priority for EPA's regulatory programs,
including hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act?
Response. It is my understanding that the Agency process for
selecting chemicals to undergo an IRIS review already does this,
consistent with available resources. If confirmed, I will work to
ensuring the chemicals selected for IRIS review are those that are high
priorities for EPA's regulatory programs.
Question 18d. The Department of Defense recently suggested that EPA
should make its IRIS review process even more lengthy and convoluted
than it currently is by including DoD and other federal agencies in
multiple levels of review prior to the document even being distributed
by the public. Including these federal agencies in this fashion could
not only further draw out the review process, it could also terribly
distort the review process because some federal agencies--including
DoD--have hundreds of billions of dollars of known liabilities at toxic
waste sites. These sites are polluted with chemicals that undergo IRIS
review which could strengthen or weaken cleanup standards.
Do you commit to preserving the integrity of the IRIS review
process by rejecting DoD and other agencies' efforts to integrate
themselves into EPA's IRIS review process prior to public review?
Response. As stated above, I am aware that the Agency is
considering revising its IRIS process, and, if confirmed, look forward
to learning more about, and contributing to, the Agency's plans. While
it is good government for federal agencies to coordinate with one
another, it must not compromise environmental safeguards or EPA's own
decision-making authority.
Question 18e. Do you commit to ensure transparency when any
commenter with a conflict of interest comments on an EPA IRIS document?
Response. Clearly, all commenters have particular interests, and I
agree that for the sake of sound development of public policy in a
democratic society, interests and their potential impacts on decisions
should be appropriately identified and made transparent. If confirmed,
I look forward to learning more about, and contributing to, the
Agency's IRIS process, including how conflict of interest issues are
handled.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.023
Statement of Lyons Gray, Nominated to be the Chief Financial Officer of
the Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and members of the committee, it is
a privilege to appear before you today as the nominee for Chief
Financial Officer of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I would
like to thank Senator Burr for his kind introduction, and I would like
to introduce to you my family who are here with me today: my wife,
Connie; our two daughters, Charlotte and Fraser; and our son-in-law,
Cameron.
It is a tremendous honor to have been nominated by President George
W. Bush for a position responsible for safeguarding public resources--
both financial resources and natural ones. I'd also like to thank
Administrator Steve Johnson for his faith in recommending me for this
key position. EPA staff are well-known for their commitment to the
Agency's mission of protecting human health and the environment. I
share their commitment, and I pledge to you that if I have the honor of
being confirmed, I will ensure that the Agency's environmental efforts
are supported by sound financial management on behalf of the American
people.
I would like to tell you about some of my experience that I believe
would be useful in the job for which you are considering me.
At the beginning of my career, I worked in sales and marketing in
the private sector, and I received an on-the-job education. With
responsibility for introducing a new consumer product, I had to think
through every aspect of the project from start to finish, from creation
through delivery. This experience in corporate America taught me how to
follow through on a project, considering all the relevant financial
issues along with product development and delivery, and it gave me a
solid foundation for every step I've taken since.
It prepared me to own my own business. My experiences as a small
business owner gave me an appreciation for the energy and business
acumen that are needed to support a successful concern. If I am
confirmed, I hope to bring the same energy and business sense to
supporting EPA's successful operations.
I would be honored if confirmed to the CFO position because it
would allow me to return to the public sector. It was my great
privilege to serve for 13 years in the General Assembly of the State of
North Carolina. During that time, I was fortunate to serve as a Member
of the House Finance Committee and as its Chair for 4 years. In that
capacity, I participated in every aspect of the development and
oversight of the $14 billion budget for the State of North Carolina and
gained valuable experience in reconciling a range of priorities--all of
them important--with available resources. I was closely involved in the
State's budget process and especially with the work of the conference
committee in which differences were worked out between the State's
House and Senate. This experience has given me a genuine appreciation
for the challenges of decisionmaking when public priorities are in the
balance. If you honor me with confirmation, I look forward to working
closely with you and the other Members of Congress who are charged with
making similar hard decisions.
Most recently, I have enjoyed the opportunity to work in the
nonprofit sector, and this has allowed me to bring together what I have
learned in both business and the State legislature for the benefit of
my local community. As President of the Downtown Winston-Salem
Partnership, I led an advocacy group to re-energize and rebuild what I
think of as one of America's greatest downtown communities--although I
admit that is because it is my home town. My responsibilities included
the administrative leadership of a Downtown Foundation which raised
funds to create a low-interest loan program which provided gap
financing to get new restaurants, shops, and entertainment venues up
and running. Apart from the great personal satisfaction of giving back
to my community, I also took away from this experience a greater
understanding of how financial and environmental issues can be
addressed--together--to help revitalize American communities.
Finally, it has been my great privilege to serve for the past 3
years as Chairman of EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board,
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Board provides
advice and analysis to EPA's Administrator on how to pay for the
growing costs of environmental protection and how to increase
investment in environmental infrastructure through the leveraging of
public and private resources. I am proud of the Board's work on behalf
of the Agency, our principal client. The financial expertise of the
Board's members is truly excellent, and the working relationship I have
enjoyed with our Designated Federal Official, Stan Meiburg, has been
equally so. If I am confirmed as CFO, I know that I will have the
pleasure of working with dedicated people who share a commitment to
EPA's mission.
Mr Chairman, public service is a gift we give back to our country.
I am very grateful for your time today and for the committee's
consideration of my nomination. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.036
Statement of H. Dale Hall, Nominated to be the Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a great honor for
me to be nominated by President Bush to be Director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. I am also honored to be here today before this
Committee as it considers my nomination to lead the Nation's premier
fish and wildlife conservation agency. If confirmed, I pledge to
respectfully and responsibly preserve and promote our nation's fish and
wildlife conservation heritage.
I am a 27-year career employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Since 2001, I have been the Director of the Service's southwest region
which includes the States of Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.
During my career with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I have worked all
over the United States, in different regions, with State game and fish
agencies, Tribes and non-governmental organizations on a myriad of
issues. The partnerships and relationships that I have forged over the
years have resulted in the support of my nomination by the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Given my background, I bring certain qualifications, insights, and
perspective to this position that I believe will benefit both the
American public and the resources we are charged with conserving.
I have a Bachelor of Science degree in biology, with a minor in
chemistry, from Cumberland College in Williamsburg, Kentucky, and a
Master of Science degree in Fisheries Science from Louisiana State
University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As a native of Harlan County,
Kentucky, I grew up wrapped in the arms of the Cumberland Plateau of
the Appalachian Mountains in a culture that both respected and loved
the natural resources and bountiful riches it provides for its people.
Because of this, hunting and fishing have always been an important part
of my life, not simply recreational pursuits. In my community, much of
our food came from the fish and wildlife that lived in and around the
Cumberland River. This culture instilled in me an understanding that
the Creator gave us the gifts necessary to sustain our lives, but also
the responsibility to ensure the care and stewardship of those gifts.
During my career, I have had the good fortune to work in the Lower
Mississippi Valley on bottomland hardwood and floodplain conservation,
in the Pacific west on the Northwest Forest Plan and California Bay/
Delta partnerships, on Everglades restoration
efforts, finding solutions to water management in the Rio Grande
Valley, and in moving efforts forward toward the restoration and
management of the Missouri River. Through my work, the most important
lesson I have learned is that long-standing solutions to natural
resource problems are not found in the exercise of governmental power
alone. Rather, long-term solutions must always have a foundation built
on collaboration with all interested constituents. Those interests are
almost always diverse and that diversity can sometimes create
significant challenges to finding a sustainable resolution. However, it
has been my experience that when these challenges are approached with
respect for all views, and a willingness to listen to the fears and
concerns of others, positive outcomes result. I have found that the
public truly cares about fish and wildlife resources and will develop
and implement creative solutions to problems. However, this can only
happen when we, as regulators, understand that we do not possess all
the answers. I believe in the old adage that says ``real power can only
be realized when it is shared and allowed to grow.'' By sharing power
with our citizens, the future success of our nation's fish and wildlife
resources is without limit.
My career has afforded me the opportunity to work on the ground
with fish culture on private facilities and in policy development for
the Service's National Fish Hatcheries, and with our State and Tribal
partners in the management of those fisheries. For example, I was
intimately involved with a Louisiana Parish Police Jury in the
establishment of the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge, and as Deputy
Regional Director and Regional Director with such exceptional groups as
the Friends of Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge and the Friends of
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. I was also actively
involved in acquiring project lands for the restoration of the
Everglades and worked with partners at the South Florida Water
Management District. My involvement in the resolution of the California
Bay/Delta Accord allowed active and frequent interaction with
agricultural, environmental, hunting and urban interests in pursuit of
a long-term solution to Central Valley water management. These
experiences have allowed me to participate in and understand the work
of the Service at all levels of the organization, and to work with a
variety of interests in natural resource management.
For the last 14 years, I have been extensively involved in the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The onslaught of lawsuits
and procedural actions, rather than the direction of all available
resources to management and improvement of habitat, has been a
significant obstacle to achievement of the stated purposes of the
Endangered Species Act. If confirmed, I will devote significant energy
to addressing much needed policy direction and partnerships with other
Federal land management agencies, States, Tribes, private land owners
and non-governmental organizations.
I cannot overstate the important role of regulation in the
conservation of species and their habitats. However, I believe we
should also maintain flexibility in our regulatory scheme as we commit
to work with our partners to further the country's conservation goals
while respecting individual rights. Too frequently, command and control
regulation is invoked, which is often the result of a heavy litigation
workload. However, we must continue our efforts to find the higher
plane of cooperative partnership.
I believe that one of the least recognized partners throughout our
history has been the sportsmen and women of the United States. These
passionate stewards have always been willing to ``foot the bill'' to
ensure that we have healthy populations of game species, beginning with
their role in waterfowl stamps, Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration
Acts in which they advocated a tax on themselves, and, currently, with
our ``waterfowl'' joint ventures. Another steadfast partner in
conservation has been the private land owner. Approximately 70 percent
of all fish and wildlife habitat in the United States is in private
hands. If we are to leave a legacy of conservation for future
generations, we must engage these land owner stewards, the hunting and
fishing community, Tribes, and others. Through this approach, I am
extremely optimistic about the future of our natural resources.
Finally, we must understand that the future of this Nation's
natural treasures resides with our most important asset: the youth of
America. We have significant opportunities to reach out to schools to
educate young people about their natural resource heritage. My first
exposure to natural resource management was as a 7th grader in Harlan
County, Kentucky, when a Kentucky ``Conservation Officer'' visited our
school and talked to us about our natural resource heritage. Until
then, I had no idea that such a heritage existed. I am committed to
increasing classroom visits to our National Wildlife Refuges, while
working with our partners to find innovative means to bring the
excitement of nature to our children. With the help of this
Administration, the Congress, our State Game and Fish agency partners,
and, most important, our citizen stewards, I believe a bright future
awaits.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for
considering my qualifications for this position. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses of H. Dale Hall to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. As you know, this Committee is currently looking at
ways to improve the Endangered Species Act. One important requirement
of the Act is that the best available science be used in making listing
decisions. During your career with the Fish and Wildlife Service you
have had to make decisions based on best available science. There has
been concern raised regarding your policy on genetics in endangered
species activities. Can you explain that policy and your justification
for not using genetics in listing decisions?
Response. The policy guidance I issued focused on how the Region
could apply new genetic information to a species that is already
listed. The guidance recognizes that the Service has legal requirements
to answer specific questions identified in the law prior to invoking
any regulatory criteria. Nothing prevents recovery teams from
determining that a newly identified genetic population merits
protection or creates previously unidentified threats to the survival
of the species. However, by law, the recovery process cannot be used to
create a new listed entity or delisting criteria that have not gone
through the analysis to answer the specific questions of the law. The
Service as a whole is working to develop national policy guidance on
the use of genetics in listing and recovery.
Question 2. The national fish hatchery program has been critically
underfunded in recent years. We have 2 fish hatcheries in my state and
they are important for aiding in the recovery of Atlantic salmon. What
is your view of the hatchery program and what will you do as Director
of the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue the operation of these
vital hatcheries?
Response. Earlier in my career, I served as the Deputy Assistant
Director for Fisheries in the Service's Washington office, where I
became very familiar with the operations of our national fish
hatcheries. The National Fish Hatchery System is critical to the
nation's recovery and restoration of native aquatic species, including
Atlantic salmon. The System also plays a vital part in the management
of the nation's recreational fisheries. Although the System faces
challenges, we are making progress in addressing annual and deferred
maintenance requirements by focusing on mission critical water
structures identified in the System's five year plan. The Service is
working closely with its partners to develop a strategic plan,
establish priorities, and focus funding on the most critical
operational needs while also fulfilling constituent needs. One such
plan, with our partners at the National Fish Habitat Initiative, would
enhance and restore aquatic habitat to ensure that fish reared on
national fish hatcheries are placed in healthy habitats.
Question 3. In July 2002, you signed a Memorandum of Understanding
with the state of Arizona relating to the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the State's role in implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). What
authorities have been delegated to the state of Arizona? What provision
under the ESA provides the regional director with this authority?
Response. The ESA Memorandum of Understanding does not delegate any
authorities to the State of Arizona. The MOU recognizes the Arizona
Department of Game and Fish as a partner in the management of fish and
wildlife in the State, and, as such, the MOU is a tool that allows us
to work more closely with that agency. The authority to work with the
Arizona Department of Fish and Game comes from Section 6 of the ESA,
which deals with Cooperation with the States, and provides for
management, cooperative, and funding agreements with the States to
protect and recover listed species.
______
Responses of H. Dale Hall to Additional Questions from Senator Baucus
Question 1a. Every year the State of Montana recommends summer
reservoir operations that will minimize the impacts of drafting Libby
and Hungry Horse dams in Montana on endangered bull trout and other
resident fish, and that will contribute to recreation in the area.
These recommendations are formally submitted to the ``Regional Forum''
process called for under the National Marine Fisheries Service
Biological Opinion for listed salmon and steelhead. Each year,
Montana's request is denied, apparently in response to objections from
representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Region 1 in
Portland, Oregon. This furthers the perception that Montana's native
fish are getting the short end of the stick relative to salmon when it
comes to the management of the Columbia River Basin. Also, I am
concerned that Region 1, which does not encompass the state of Montana,
apparently has veto authority over proposals originating in Montana,
without the input of Region 6.
Additionally, these proposed changes to flow operations at Libby
and Hungry Horse dams were adopted by the Northwest Power and
Conservation council in its 2003 Mainstem Amendments to the Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. These changes are also
consistent with the recommendations made by the Bull Trout Recovery
Team in its Recovery Plan. Again, these proposed operational changes
have continually been denied, despite the fact that the potential
benefits of flows from Montana reservoirs on the survival of salmon
downstream are extremely difficult to measure.
How would you address and resolve this apparent conflict between
the needs of different endangered species in the same river system? Do
you believe that one endangered species should be given a priority over
another?
Response. The recovery of multiple listed species in a river system
as large and diverse as the Columbia River Basin is an extremely
complicated endeavor involving numerous stakeholders, including two
different regions of the Service, other Federal, State and local
agencies, Tribes, power users, conservation organizations, private
landowners and many other entities. Despite these complexities, I am
committed to finding effective and efficient approaches to recover all
endangered species in this important river system.
The Service considers the bull trout population in Hungry Horse
Reservoir, as well as Lake Koocanusa, to be stable. In fact, bull trout
populations in these impoundments are increasing to the point where, in
2003, the State of Montana requested the Service ease angling
restrictions for bull trout on these waters to provide for recreational
fishing opportunities.
The Service recognizes the need to ensure that current and future
reservoir management in the Montana portion of the Upper Columbia River
Basin address instream flow needs for bull trout. We also appreciate
the need to consider Montana reservoir operations within the larger
context of the recovery of other endangered species, principally
salmon, steelhead, and Kootenai white sturgeon, and the respective
water needs for these species.
Accordingly, Regions 6 and 1 have coordinated on this issue at
field and regional levels to ensure that our recommendations for
reservoir operations to support bull trout recovery in Montana
complement the overall water management scheme for the suite of
endangered fishes in the Columbia system downstream from Montana. If I
am confirmed as Director, I will make it a priority to ensure that all
Service Regions work together to ensure effective and balanced
conservation for cross-regional species.
Question 1b. The concentration of staff and resources in Region 1
means that Montana issues are often handled by Region 1 staff who do
not necessarily have knowledge of local conditions or of the true needs
of resident species in Montana. Will you investigate the continued
disparities in funding and staffing between Region 6 and Region 1, both
in general and relative to the conflict between salmon and Montana
resident fish? If necessary, will you advocate for the re-allocation of
funding and/or staff resources between Region 1 and Region 6 so that
the needs of Montana's resident species are adequately addressed,
particularly relative to the needs of salmon?
Response. Regions 1 and 6 work closely together on species of
mutual concern, including salmon and other fish species that occur
within both regions. The Service has worked to improve our recovery
program, including the establishment of a process whereby high priority
recovery needs of species can better be allocated and addressed by
Service Regions. As we move into the upcoming fiscal year, I will work
to ensure that the allocation of funding and staff resources is
adequately balanced to recover high priority species, including cross-
regional species.
______
Responses of H. Dale Hall to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. What have been your most proud accomplishments during
your tenure as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Southeast Region? How will these experiences assist you in your new
capacity as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service should the Senate
approve your nomination?
Response. I am very pleased with the accomplishments of our
outstanding employees in the southwest. We have significantly improved
our relationships with the State Game and Fish Agencies resulting in
excellent working partnerships throughout the Region. Our work with the
Tribes of the southwest has also been very rewarding and has resulted
in very strong relationships. However, the most important
accomplishments of the Region have been improved communication and
partnerships with counties, municipalities, and private land owners. We
have worked very hard at building trust, the single most important
ingredient in working with the public. I believe that good government
is rooted in integrity and trust. This has been and continues to be our
constant goal.
Question 2. As you know, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues in
the West are often quite different than those in the New England region
where land values are high, population pressures on delicate ecosystems
are abundant, and our National Wildlife Refuges are often smaller in
size, but of no less import. As the new Director, how would you work to
balance differences between the regions, whether in terms of funding,
land acquisition and management, or staffing decisions?
Response. If confirmed as Director, I will work with the Service
Directorate to ensure that allocations of funding and staffing are
balanced and fully consider workload, performance, and priorities. Many
opportunities avail themselves in the east to touch urban populations
and educate our youth. I will work to address opportunities and
priorities throughout the country.
Question 3. How important do you believe the role of science is in
decision-making processes related to implementation of the Endangered
Species Act.
Response. The role of science in decision-making under the ESA is
absolutely essential. We must be honest about what we know, what we
think we know, and what we don't know. Scientific integrity must then
be brought to the questions of the law rather than the law being taken
to meet the science. In my view, it is as unethical to ignore
applicable science as it is to ``stretch'' science by saying ``since we
don't know, let's use the law to protect until we do know.'' If we are
to succeed under the ESA, the reputation of the Service must be one of
honesty and truth.
Question 4. In a letter from the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) to the EPW Committee regarding your nomination,
you were criticized for instructing staff in the Southeast Region to
omit genetic data from decisions related to threatened and endangered
species protection and recovery. Would you explain what may have
generated this criticism, and what your general position is on genetic
data being used to make decisions related to the implementation of the
Endangered Species Act?
Response. The policy guidance I issued did not instruct biologists
to ignore genetics. Rather, it focused on how the Region could apply
new genetic information to a species that is already listed. The
guidance recognizes that the Service has legal requirements to answer
specific questions identified in the law prior to invoking any
regulatory criteria. Nothing prevents recovery teams from determining
that a newly identified genetic population merits protection or creates
previously unidentified threats to the survival of the species.
However, by law, the recovery process cannot be used to create a new
listed entity or delisting criteria that have not gone through the
analysis to answer the specific questions of the law. The Service as a
whole is working to develop national policy guidance on the use of
genetics in listing and recovery.
Question 5. As this Committee continues to take a hard look at
reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act, we have heard a great deal
about the important role cooperative partnerships play in recovering
federally-listed species. As Southeast Regional Director, what has been
your experience with cooperative partnerships for bringing Federal
agencies, States and local governments, landowners and the non-profit
community together to resolve differences and move toward the common
goal of recovering species?
Response. The Endangered Species Act has 18 sections, only two of
which identify prohibitions or penalties for violations. If the purpose
of the Act (conservation of ecosystems and species) is to be
accomplished, we must look to the largest reservoir of opportunity. In
the United States, approximately 70 percent of all fish and wildlife
habitat is in private ownership. In my years of implementation of the
ESA, I have witnessed private land owners harvest trees before full
attainment of their economic viability, mow fields to remove wildlife
forage and plant pastures in non-native grass, all to avoid the
possibility that a listed species may come onto their property. In my
experience, these land owners want to have as much natural diversity on
their property as possible, but they are concerned about the impacts of
the ESA on their property.
Our efforts in the southwest, and across the country, have been
directed at addressing these concerns and giving willing land owners
both protections against regulation and incentives to improve their
property for imperiled species. In the southwest, we have partnerships
with Arizona ranchers that cover nearly three quarters of a million
acres; agreements with private land owners; partnerships with State
land agencies and other Federal agencies in New Mexico to protect
lesser prairie chickens and sand dune lizards; and numerous
partnerships with land owners in Oklahoma that are restoring wetlands
and grasslands at an impressive pace.
I believe there is an unlimited potential to work with private,
State and Tribal land owners to head off listings and recover those
species currently listed under the ESA. Regulation can only ensure that
habitat is not destroyed; it cannot require that habitat be improved.
However, voluntary participation by land owners ensures that every acre
under an agreement is improved for the benefit of fish and wildlife
species. Accordingly, long term success rests with active cooperative
partnerships where regulation is used as a measure of last resort for
those that choose to disregard the law.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.052
Statement of Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Nominated to be a Member of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jeffords, Members of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, it is a great honor to appear before you
as President Bush's nominee for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC).
As you know, this will be my third term on the Commission, if the
Senate approves my nomination. I have appeared before this Committee
and its Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety
on many occasions since Chairman Inhofe reinstituted regular NRC
oversight hearings in July 1998. I believe that NRC has benefited
greatly from that oversight, and I look forward to continued vigorous
oversight, should I be confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee for the NRC-related
legislation that was included in the Energy Bill enacted last month.
This was the most far-reaching package of NRC provisions in more than
two decades. They provide the Commission with tools to improve the
safety and security of civilian nuclear facilities and more
importantly, the personnel tools to manage what I see as the most
significant management challenge facing the Commission in the years
ahead: managing generational change.
NRC recently announced that it plans to hire 350 new employees in
fiscal year 2006. This will be a combination of experienced and entry
level hires and will constitute more than 10 percent of NRC's total
workforce in September 2006. This trend will continue for several years
further as NRC faces twin bow waves, a bow wave of retirements
estimated at about 7 percent of our workforce per year (about 220
people/year), and a bow wave of new work primarily related to
applications for the design certification of advanced reactors and for
combined operating licenses for new reactors (about 100-150 people/
year).
I can show you the first bow wave visually. The chart attached to
my statement shows the age distribution of NRC's permanent employees on
April 30, 2005 compared to September 30, 2000. Note that the peak
population between the ages of 50 and 55 in 2000 has essentially moved
5 years to the right. There is good news in the chart. NRC has been
hiring young people over the past 5 years, and we are often quite
successful in hiring experienced mid-career (mid-40's) individuals who
find the challenge of NRC's work combined with the Federal benefits
package attractive at that stage of their lives.
I cannot show you the second bow wave because there is so much
uncertainty about it. GE in late August submitted its application for
certification of the design of the Economic and Simplified Boiling
Water Reactor (ESBWR). Areva has indicated that it will apply for
design certification for the Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) as soon
as possible.
Various utilities and groups of utilities have expressed interest
in submitting combined operating and construction authorization
licenses (COLs) within the next 2 to 3 years. The Energy Bill has
created strong financial incentives for the first movers toward COL
applications. The Commission will also face complex license
applications for facilities such as the Duke/Cogema mixed oxide (MOX)
fuel fabrication facility in late 2006, and could receive an
application for construction authorization for the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository as soon as April 2006.
The bottom line is that the Commission will need to manage a large
number of very important licensing activities over the next 5 years in
a timely and efficient manner while losing many experienced staffers to
retirement, including most of the senior career leadership of the
agency. Senator Voinovich took the lead in granting the Commission
every statutory personnel change the Commission requested in the Energy
Bill. This Committee and the Appropriations Committee have supported
the additional resources in fiscal year 2006 that the Commission
requested. Now the job is the Commission's to manage this generational
change at NRC, and to ensure that NRC emerges as strong or stronger to
meet the challenges of the future. I hope to be part of the Commission
as it faces these challenges. We have met similar challenges in the
past in areas such as reactor license renewal, transfer of reactor
licenses, and certification of dual-purpose spent fuel casks. To be
successful this time, the Commission will need to ensure that funds for
training new staff are protected against competing resource needs.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a brief comment on the NRC career
staff. They are the Nation's nuclear safety and security watchdogs.
They bring unmatched scientific, engineering and legal expertise to
bear to ensure safety and security at our civilian nuclear facilities.
They are often criticized, sometimes sharply and personally, by those
who do not prevail in NRC's regulatory processes, for making decisions
or recommending actions consistent with the law, NRC's regulations, and
sound engineering judgment. Perhaps no regulator will ever be loved,
except by his or her family, but I would urge those interest groups who
launch ad hominem attacks on the NRC and especially the staff to
refrain in the future.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude on a personal note. I am the
son of an Irish immigrant with four grades of education. He came to
this country in the early 1920's, survived the Depression, volunteered
at age 36 for the U.S. Army at the start of World War II, served in
Europe, returned home to meet my mother, herself the daughter of Irish
immigrants, marry her and raise a family by doing manual labor for the
Boston Gas Company. He died far too soon from cancer in 1969, but by
the time he died he had a son at Harvard, a daughter at Manhattanville,
and a second son who would later enter West Point. I am grateful to my
mother and my father (and my mother's father who lived with us until
his death in 1970) for always encouraging us to dream big dreams and
for teaching us that in this great country acting on those dreams with
open eyes can make them possible.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the Committee's questions.
Responses of Edward McGaffigan, Jr., to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. When we met, we discussed the need for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to bring on at least 350 employees next
year to keep up with attrition due to retirements. Do you think this
can be accomplished, especially when the Commission is competing with
private industry?
Response. Yes, I do, but it is going to be a significant challenge.
I should clarify that the need for 350 new employees in FY2006 is not
just due to retirements. About 220 of the new employees will replace
staff retirements. The remainder are additional employees to meet the
NRC's expanding workload, particularly on advanced reactors.
The NRC can compete for both young graduates and mid-career
employees with the tools provided by Congress in the Energy
legislation. NRC is recognized as one of the best places to work in the
Federal government.
Sustaining this level of hiring for four or five years will be an
even greater challenge. But NRC must meet the challenge. Ensuring that
all these new employees are fully trained and able to carry out their
responsibilities is in my view the Commission's highest budget
priority.
Question 2. The NRC handles very complicated technical issues, and
ones that deal with the control and regulation of nuclear materials.
You have considered several of these, and the next few years will bring
several more challenges. Much has been made of your response to the
Princeton spent fuel study, which ultimately led to the Congressionally
requested National Academy Report on spent fuel, and to the security
legislation that was recently signed into law. Could you share your
views about the type and scope of peer review you believe is needed
when studies show that nuclear materials may be vulnerable to terrorist
attacks?
Response. I continue to believe that the Alvarez, et al study (the
Princeton study) was a deeply flawed report, to which the passage of
time has not been kind. To my knowledge there has been no effort in the
Congress to embrace the study's fundamental recommendation, namely that
the nation should launch a massive and costly effort to remove all
spent fuel more than five years cooled from spent fuel pools and place
the fuel in dry casks.
The National Academy of Sciences report was a much more balanced
effort. The Commission provided its comments on the Academy report to
the Congress earlier this year in unclassified and classified forms. I
endorse those comments.
I should note that I regret that NRC got into a needlessly
contentious battle with the Academy over classification of the
Academy's study. When the issue finally rose to the Commission level
early this year, the Commission was able to provide guidance that
resolved the issue, I believe to everyone's satisfaction.
As a general matter, I am a very strong believer in peer review.
When classified, safeguards, or sensitive material is involved, the
peer review process has to be limited to those with appropriate
clearances and need-to-know. The Pentagon, the Department of Energy and
other security and law enforcement agencies have faced this issue for
decades. The National Academy of Sciences is one way to get scientific
peer review on classified matters. NRC's Advisory Committees on Reactor
Safeguards and Nuclear Waste provide another. The use of existing
mechanisms in other agencies, such as the JASONs, is a third
possibility.
Question 3. As you know, there has long been tension at NRC over
the need to inform the public about safety issues and the need to
control access to safeguards information. The NRC approved a new policy
on March 29, 2004 on security-related information. Commission voting
records show that you differed with the recommendations of NRC staff
when they recommended a more flexible policy on releasing security
information to the public. At least some of your objections appear to
stem from a concern that it might be costly and time-consuming to
provide this information to the public.
For example, you wrote in your explanation of the reasons why you
rejected the staff's recommendation, that ``the staff will be pressed
to reveal more information and to assure the public that despite these
[security] deficiencies, the plant should not be shut down. Congressmen
will feel compelled to write letters. Reporters will feel compelled to
seek safeguards information. This will be a fool's errand, carried out
time and time again, consuming staff and Commission resources in large
quantities.''
Do you view this solely as a question of resources and do you
believe that NRC should limit public disclosure of even non-safeguarded
security information because it might generate public or Congressional
questions?
Response. I do not see any conflict between keeping the public
informed about safety issues, as opposed to security issues, and the
need to control access to safeguards information under Section 147 of
the Atomic Energy Act. Our reactor oversight process is by far the most
open, transparent and timely evaluation of safety performance of any
Federal safety agency.
On security issues, there is a tension in keeping the general
public informed, but no tension in keeping the Congress or State
homeland security officials informed. I believe that the Commission,
especially Chairman Diaz, has demonstrated a willingness in recent
years to discuss the most sensitive security matters with the Congress.
We have had two meetings with the Committee on Environment and Public
Works in S-407 of the Capitol and many more with individual Members or
groups of Members and appropriately cleared staff. We have kept the
States fully and currently informed about any security deficiencies
identified at the plants either through our baseline inspections or
force-on-force exercises.
I do not regard the issue of how open to be on plant-specific
security issues to be a resource issue. The paragraph you cite from my
vote only was included to rebut the claim that the staff proposal would
save resources. Earlier in my vote I had expressed my fundamental
problem with the staff proposal, namely that it would make information
available to terrorists about security deficiencies at particular sites
that every other agency of the Federal government protects from public
disclosure, and rightly so. The option which the Commission chose
provides full information on plant-specific security matters to Members
of Congress and State homeland security officials. It was being
implemented successfully by the NRC staff as of my June 30, 2005
departure from the Commission.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8852.061
<all>