    [Senate Hearing 109-787]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            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) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                   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