    [Senate Hearing 119-120]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-120

                         BRIGHTBILL, PIERCE, PROCHASKA,
                             AND MAMULA NOMINATIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       to

     CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF JONATHAN BRIGHTBILL TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL
    OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TINA PIERCE TO BE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
      OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CONNER PROCHASKA TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
    ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND NED
    MAMULA TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
                                    INTERIOR

                                   __________

                                  MAY 14, 2025
                                   __________

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                    ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-236                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                            MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
    JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                      Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director
                Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel
                     Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director
                     Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............     1
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      New Mexico.....................................................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Brightbill, Jonathan, nominated to be General Counsel of the
      Department of Energy...........................................     7
    Pierce, Tina, nominated to be Chief Financial Officer of the
      Department of Energy...........................................    11
    Prochaska, Conner, nominated to be Director of the Advanced
      Research Projects Agency-Energy, Department of Energy..........    15
    Mamula, Ned, nominated to be Director of the U.S. Geological
      Survey, Department of the Interior.............................    19

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    American Conservation Coalition et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    65
    Brightbill, Jonathan:
        Opening Statement............................................     7
        Written Testimony............................................     9
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    47
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
        Inside Climate News article entitled ``USGS Water Data
          Centers May Soon Close, Threatening States' Water
          Management'' by Wyatt Myskow, published on April 29, 2025..    37
        Science.org article entitled ``Trump Swings Budget Ax at USGS
          Biology Research'' by Erik Stokstad, published on April 18,
          2025.......................................................    41
    Lee, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Mamula, Ned:
        Opening Statement............................................    19
        Written Testimony............................................    21
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    56
    National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    67
    Pierce, Tina:
        Opening Statement............................................    11
        Written Testimony............................................    13
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    51
    Prochaska, Conner:
        Opening Statement............................................    15
        Written Testimony............................................    17
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    53

                         BRIGHTBILL, PIERCE, PROCHASKA,
                             AND MAMULA NOMINATIONS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in Room
    SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman
    of the Committee, presiding.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        The Chairman. This is the seventh hearing for this Congress
    on this Committee, and we are going to hear testimony today
    from four distinguished Americans who have been nominated by
    President Trump for senior offices within our Committee's
    jurisdiction, one at the Department of the Interior and three
    at the Department of Energy. I am grateful to the President for
    sending us all of these nominees.
        First, we will hear from Mr. Jonathan Brightbill. He has
    been nominated to be the General Counsel of the Department of
    Energy. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the
    Department, providing legal counsel and advice to the Secretary
    and other officers at the Department, as well as its many
    components, ensuring that the Department carries out its duties
    and responsibilities in accordance with the law. Attorneys from
    the General Counsel's Office represent the Department in
    various matters and work in partnership with attorneys in the
    Department of Justice to represent the Department of Energy
    whenever it ends up in court. The General Counsel's team also
    assists in drafting and reviewing legislation, regulations, and
    contracts, as well as upholding the Department's ethical
    obligations.
        Mr. Brightbill is a partner at Winston and Strawn LLP, and
    happens to be the chair of the firm's environmental litigation
    and enforcement practice. From 2017 to 2021, he served in the
    Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources
    Division, known as ENRD, successively as Deputy Assistant
    Attorney General, Principal Assistant Attorney General, and
    Acting Assistant Attorney General. Only in a department of
    lawyers can you have so many acronyms that themselves have
    their own familiar abbreviations, but it's one of the things
    that they are known for, in addition to having outstanding
    lawyers. In that role, he managed more than 425 attorneys,
    handling roughly 6,500 active matters, argued precedent-setting
    cases, and oversaw enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act,
    CERCLA, and a number of other environmental statutes. Mr.
    Brightbill was previously a partner at Kirkland and Ellis, and
    clerked for Judge D. Brooks Smith on the U.S. Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit. He holds a juris doctorate, magna cum
    laude, from Georgetown University Law Center and a bachelor of
    science, cum laude, in economics from the Wharton School at the
    University of Pennsylvania.
        Second, we will hear from Ms. Tina Pierce, who has been
    nominated to serve as the Chief Financial Officer of the
    Department of Energy. The CFO ensures the effective management
    and financial integrity of Department of Energy programs,
    activities, and resources. She develops, implements, and
    monitors policies, procedures, and systems regarding budgets,
    appropriations, finance, and accounting. Ms. Pierce is
    currently the Deputy Chief Financial Officer at the Department
    of Defense, advising the Pentagon's CFO. She directs policy
    development, audit readiness, remediation, enterprise risk
    management, production of the DOD agency financial report, and
    oversees the DOD's internal control and payment integrity
    programs. She previously served as Chief of Financial Reporting
    and Compliance at the Defense Health Agency.
        An Idaho native, she served as a Marine Corps officer,
    obtaining the rank of Captain. Between her military service and
    her return to federal service as a civilian in 2018, she held
    finance and accounting leadership positions in both the public
    and private sectors across the United States and Europe, with
    expertise spanning information technology, energy, education,
    and consulting, and was appointed to the Senior Executive
    Service in August 2020. Ms. Pierce earned a bachelor of science
    in accounting from the University of Utah and an M.B.A. from
    Colorado State University. She is a CPA and a Certified Defense
    Financial Manager Level 3. Her 22 military decorations include
    the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Sea Service
    Deployment Ribbon, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    Medal for Exceptional Civilian Service. She is also a member of
    the Beta Gamma Sigma International Business Honor Society.
        Third, we will hear from Mr. Conner Prochaska, who has been
    nominated to be the Director of the Advanced Research Energy
    Agency, also known as ARPA-E. ARPA-E enhances the economic and
    energy security mission, as well as the technological
    leadership of the United States through the development of
    advanced energy technologies. It serves as a launchpad for new
    companies and major industry advancements and was founded to
    preserve America's technological edge in this area. It is
    advancing state-of-the-art energy, science, and engineering,
    and finding new opportunities for the commercialization of
    advanced energy technologies.
        Mr. Prochaska currently serves as Senior Advisor at the
    Department of Energy. He was previously DOE's Chief
    Commercialization Officer and Director of the Office of
    Technology Transitions (OTT), guiding all technology transfer
    and commercialization activities across DOE's 17 national
    laboratories, production sites, and research centers. He also
    served as Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor at ARPA-E, where he
    managed day-to-day operations and helped shape the agency's
    transformational research and development portfolio. Mr.
    Prochaska began his career as an intelligence officer of the
    United States Navy, attaining the rank of Lieutenant while
    assigned to the Center for Combating Weapons of Mass
    Destruction. His military decorations include the Joint Service
    Commendation Medal, Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Joint
    Meritorious Unit Award, National Defense Service Medal, Global
    War on Terrorism Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon,
    and a whole bunch of others. He has a very impressive
    background. He graduated from Texas A&M University with a
    bachelor of arts in political science, was elected student body
    president, and was inducted into the General O.R. Simpson Corps
    Honor Society. He later received his law degree from the
    Georgetown University Law School.
        Finally today, we will hear from Dr. Ned Mamula, nominated
    be the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey within the
    Department of the Interior. Dr. Mamula has over 35 years'
    experience in the fields of energy and mineral exploration,
    production, and resource policy. He has experience in both the
    Federal Government and private industry, as well as academia,
    with critical and strategic minerals, oil, gas, shale, natural
    gas hydrates, coal, and uranium. During his long career, he has
    worked as Chief Geologist at GreenMet, a company focused on
    achieving mineral security, and owned and worked at Terra
    Dynamics Corporation. From 2019 to 2023, Dr. Mamula directed
    the Critical Mineral and Rare Earth program for Leonardo
    Technologies, on contract with the U.S. Department of Energy.
        Dr. Mamula has considerable experience at the U.S.
    Geological Survey, the entity that he is now asked to lead by
    President Trump, having served the agency as a research
    geologist from 2007 to 2009 and earlier in his career from 1977
    to 1987. He was only 12 years old at the time--a prodigy, I am
    told.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. He also served in the Central Intelligence
    Agency as a geoscientist and intelligence analyst from 2009 to
    2015. At the CIA, Dr. Mamula received a Deputy Director of
    Intelligence Medal of Service in Afghanistan and multiple
    exceptional performance awards for superior accomplishments and
    valuable service. He also previously served as a geoscientist
    at the Department of Homeland Security, where he received a
    meritorious service award for providing intelligence support
    for U.S. Coast Guard and DHS operations and interagency
    coordination, as well as a commendation for meritorious service
    while fulfilling a broad spectrum of intelligence support
    missions. He also received the Assistant Commandant for
    Intelligence Performance Award.
        A Pennsylvania native, Dr. Mamula received a bachelor of
    science in geology from Slippery Rock University in 1973 and
    later received a master of science in geosciences from Penn
    State University in 1980. Dr. Mamula also earned a Ph.D. in
    geosciences from Texas A&M University in 1986 and a master of
    international public policy and strategic resources from Johns
    Hopkins University in 2005.
        All the nominees we will hear from today are well-qualified
    for the offices for which they have been nominated, and they
    represent exactly the type of bold leadership that America
    needs, uniquely, right now.
        All right, we are almost to the point where we have a
    voting quorum present. I will ask now--the Ranking Member is
    correct. We don't yet have the votes we need.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. We are almost there.
        I will ask Ranking Member Heinrich if he would like to make
    an opening statement.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman Lee, and welcome, Mr.
    Brightbill, Ms. Pierce, Mr. Prochaska, and Dr. Mamula.
        Confirmation hearings enable Senators to advise and consent
    on presidential nominations. They also remind us of the great
    breadth and importance of the functions that we entrust to
    presidential appointees. The nominations before us this morning
    are no exceptions. Today, we have three nominees before us who
    have been nominated to important positions at the Department of
    Energy. I want to hear from today's nominees about how they
    plan to use their positions to do good for the American people.
    At the very minimum, that is what we should want, what we
    should demand from our public servants. That is not what we are
    seeing currently at DOE. In the last few days, DOE announced
    plans to cut dozens of energy efficiency rules that have saved
    consumers hundreds of dollars a year on their utility bills.
    The administration claims it is cutting red tape. Instead, we
    are seeing it stop real progress.
        The President has nominated Mr. Brightbill to be General
    Counsel at the Department of Energy. The General Counsel is the
    chief lawyer for the Department. The Department's General
    Counsel must not only be a skilled advocate, but also a wise
    counselor. He is the keeper of the Agency's conscience, who
    ensures that the Department follows the law, upholds the
    Constitution, and protects the public interest.
        The President has nominated Ms. Pierce to be the
    Department's Chief Financial Officer. The CFO is the guardian
    of the public's money within the Department, who ensures that
    it is properly obligated and disbursed as Congress has directed
    in the law.
        The President has nominated Mr. Prochaska to be the
    Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA-E,
    as it is known here. ARPA-E is our investment in the future.
    Its mission is to overcome barriers to developing
    transformative science and technology solutions to our energy
    and environmental problems.
        My colleagues are fond of talking about energy dominance.
    Dinosaurs were once dominant. Not so much today. We will not
    remain a great nation by clinging to the past. If we want to
    remain dominant, we must embrace the future and invest in it
    today. ARPA-E is our investment in the future scientific
    advances that will ensure our scientific and technological
    dominance into the 22nd century and beyond.
        Finally, the President has nominated Dr. Mamula to lead the
    U.S. Geological Survey. The USGS is our nation's trusted source
    of data on natural hazards, weather, water, ecosystems, and our
    mineral wealth. It must remain non-partisan and independent,
    and the integrity of its science is essential for informed
    decision-making across the government and industry alike. Dr.
    Mamula has stated he plans to shrink the agency's mission and
    has dismissed conservation efforts and public land withdrawals
    as a left-wing tool to block mining. Additionally, some of his
    past statements, particularly his accusation that hostile
    foreign entities fund domestic environmental lawsuits, raise
    questions about how he would uphold USGS's commitment to
    impartial science-based work. The USGS should not be turned
    into a vehicle for deregulation or industry favoritism. We need
    a director who will defend its core mission, not politicize it.
        I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses this
    morning and I appreciate their willingness to take on these
    important and challenging responsibilities.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thanks so much, Senator Heinrich.
        We will now proceed to the business meeting as part of
    today's hearing.
        [RECESS]
        The Chairman. All right, let's turn to the hearing today.
        The world is in a race. It is a race for resources, for
    technological supremacy, and for control over the supply chains
    that power our daily lives. In this race, there are no
    consolation prizes. America will either lead or it will be
    led--led by powers that don't always share our interests or our
    values.
        Unfortunately, we have seen and experienced, painfully,
    what happens when energy policy is driven by ideology rather
    than reality. Rolling blackouts, soaring prices, families
    struggling at the gas pump. American workers have been
    outsourced. Our mineral resources are locked away, with
    producers forced to jump through decades of procedural hoops,
    all while China tightens its grip on global supply chains. This
    is not the America we believe in. We believe in an America
    where our energy isn't hostage to foreign interests, where
    innovation is rewarded, and where workers lead the world--our
    workers. That is why we are here today. We are assembling a
    dream team, a roster of American patriots, who know the stakes
    are high and can outwork, outsmart, and outlast America's
    adversaries.
        Each of these nominees will be responsible for critical
    roles in our energy future, overseeing the legal strategy of
    the Department of Energy, ensuring financial integrity across
    multibillion-dollar energy programs, driving groundbreaking
    research at ARPA-E, and securing our critical minerals through
    the U.S. Geological Survey. Their decisions will impact
    everything from keeping the lights on in American homes to
    unlocking the next generation of energy innovations. These are
    not ceremonial posts. These are positions of consequence.
        We on this Committee are processing nominees more than
    three times faster than the last Congress. By the close of this
    hearing, we will have reported 16 critical energy leaders out
    of this Committee, compared to just four at this point in 2021.
    We know what is at stake, and that is why we are moving fast.
    And we are moving at a breakneck speed because America can't
    afford to wait, and our leadership on the world stage cannot be
    taken for granted. It must be earned, secured, and defended
    every single day. Our adversaries are watching. They, of
    course, hope that we will fumble, that we turn inward, that we
    abandon the competitive edge that has made America the global
    leader. We won't give them that satisfaction. We must not. We
    will lead with strength, with resolve, and with an unshakable
    commitment to American energy dominance.
        American energy dominance means American security, American
    jobs, and American leadership. It means no more pleading with
    global adversaries, no more dependency on unreliable supply
    chains, and no more surrendering our future to global
    competitors. America's energy future must be American-made.
    That means putting leaders in place who understand our
    resources are a strength, our workers are an asset, and our
    technology is unmatched. We have the resources. We have the
    talent. We have the will. Soon, we will have the team to
    reclaim our position as the global energy superpower.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Chair, I would say that the reality
    is that the Department of Energy is hobbling our energy
    leadership and this administration is sidelining the majority
    of our energy projects and killing jobs--for example, the
    Empire Wind Project, which was fully permitted--and raising
    energy costs on consumers. This is threatening our leadership,
    not only in the field of energy, but also in artificial
    intelligence. So I look forward to hearing from our nominees
    today on how they would manage these positions.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. I look forward
    to hearing from them as well, and having spent time with them,
    I am confident that each of them will serve our country very,
    very well.
        Now, the rules of the Committee require that all nominees
    be sworn in connection with their testimony. So if you would
    all rise and raise your right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about
    to provide to the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth,
    and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
        [Witness panel sworn.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And then, we will have you begin your opening statements in
    a moment, but before we do that, I ask the witnesses three
    questions that are posed to all nominees appearing before this
    Committee.
        First, will you be available to appear before this
    Committee and other congressional committees to represent
    departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to
    Congress?
        [Witnesses respond, ``yes.'']
        The Chairman. Second, are you aware of any personal
    holdings, investments, or interests that could constitute a
    conflict of interest or create the appearance of such conflict,
    should you be confirmed and assume the office to which you have
    been nominated by the President of the United States?
        [Witnesses respond, ``no.'']
        The Chairman. And third, are you involved in or do you have
    any assets in a blind trust?
        [Witnesses respond, ``no.'']
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        We will note here for the record that each nominee
    responded in the affirmative to the first question and in the
    negative to the two subsequent questions.
        Now, as I turn to the witnesses, we will have each of you
    speak for five minutes, starting with Mr. Brightbill and moving
    to my right--your left--in that order, and as you do so, I
    invite you, as you may prefer, to introduce any family members
    who may be here with you today.
        We will start with you, Mr. Brightbill.

         STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BRIGHTBILL, NOMINATED TO BE
            GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Mr. Brightbill. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member
    Heinrich, and distinguished members of the Committee. It is an
    honor to appear before you today as President Trump's nominee
    for General Counsel of the Department of Energy. I am deeply
    grateful to President Trump and Secretary Wright for this
    nomination, recognizing that, under our Constitution, your
    advice and consent are essential for me to assume this position
    of trust. I look forward to today's hearing and any further
    discussions that may be needed, and I hope to earn your
    support.
        I want to thank my family, who have supported me and
    tolerated the long hours and frequent absences that my work has
    required over the years. Thank you foremost to my wife, Nicole,
    who manages to balance everything in our family, in addition to
    her own demanding professional obligations. I want to recognize
    my children: Tamsin, finishing her junior year in high school,
    Chip, a freshman, and Davis, our fifth grader. Every day, these
    three blessings from God remind me of the greatness and the
    promise of America and inspire me to do what I do.
        One of the most unexpectedly difficult questions I received
    during this process was to identify the state from which I
    hail. Having lived in Virginia for 20 years now, with my three
    children born and raised there, I responded, ``the Commonwealth
    of Virginia.'' I somewhat regret having done so, because I was
    born and raised in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and really
    consider myself, like Senator McCormick, a proud son of that
    other great commonwealth. With me today as well is the
    Honorable David Chip Brightbill, my father, and my stepmother,
    the Honorable Donna Long Brightbill, whose own dedication to
    public service in Pennsylvania inspired me to that same call
    here today.
        With one senator and one judge already in the family, that
    left the only option open for me to maintain the Constitution's
    separation of powers was to pursue service in the executive
    branch. I also want to thank my mother, Carol, who is back home
    in Pennsylvania, though she couldn't be here today, as well as
    my brother Christian for coming down from Pittsburgh to help. I
    also want to thank Deputy Secretary Danly for his role in
    including me as part of the great team that he and Secretary
    Wright are assembling for the Department of Energy.
        I ask for this Committee's support because I think I can
    help the Department of Energy and the country at this moment,
    when I think that there is a bipartisan consensus that the
    United States needs more energy to meet our challenges in the
    world. My training to help address these challenges began at
    the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business,
    where I concentrated on public policy and management. My first
    public service was as an executive policy specialist for
    Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge at his Department of
    Environmental Protection. There, I traveled the state and
    learned so much about the energy industry so critical to the
    economy of that state and this country and first cut my teeth
    on the many public policy issues still impacting energy
    development.
        After graduating magna cum laude from Georgetown University
    Law Center, I clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Third Circuit for the Honorable D. Brooks Smith. And for my
    first 15 years, I practiced law in D.C. here at Kirkland and
    Ellis before joining the Department of Justice in 2017. At the
    Environment and Natural Resources Division, I first had the
    privilege of working with the Department of Energy's General
    Counsel, including Bill Cooper, as well as many other
    officials, there, like Ted Garrish, Eric Fygi, and others,
    effectively in the role of outside counsel for the Department
    of Energy across a range of matters. DOJ was also my first
    opportunity to serve as a senior manager in government, where I
    helped lead ENRD's 425 lawyers and 600 employees, managing
    6,500 active matters, cases, investigations, and the like, and
    a budget of $150 million a year. Over the last four years, I
    have been privileged to be a partner at the law firm of Winston
    and Strawn, here in D.C., where my practice has continued to
    include many energy industry clients and matters across the
    range of energy technologies and across different areas of the
    energy sector.
        If confirmed as General Counsel, it would be my privilege
    to assist President Trump and Secretary Wright in achieving
    their vision of American energy dominance. I would also look
    forward to working with this Committee and Congress and other
    stakeholders to undertake sound energy policy reforms to our
    laws, regulations, and programs, to advance the interests of
    the American people first, but ultimately through American
    greatness and leadership, to better all human lives.
        Thank you all again for the honor to appear before you here
    today, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brightbill follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brightbill.
        We will hear now from Ms. Pierce.

       STATEMENT OF TINA PIERCE, NOMINATED TO BE CHIEF FINANCIAL
                  OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Ms. Pierce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Heinrich, and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to
    appear before you today as President Trump's nominee for Chief
    Financial Officer at the Department of Energy.
        Before I begin my official remarks, I would like to
    introduce the members of my family who have joined me here
    today: my husband of 26 years, Scott Pierce, who is a retired
    Marine Colonel, and someone who, at the age of 19, worked in
    the oil fields of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and North Dakota; my
    stepdaughter Elisa, son Thomas, and daughter Isabel. I would
    also like to recognize my son Jackson, daughter-in-law Ellen,
    and my amazing parents, Robert and Judy Morgan, who are unable
    to be here today.
        I am honored to be nominated by the President and humbled
    to be considered by the Senate for an office of such great
    trust and responsibility to the American people, and, if
    confirmed, to play a role in unleashing American energy
    dominance to better all human lives. Energy Secretary Wright
    asked me what I would consider success if I were to be
    nominated and confirmed as the Energy Department's CFO. My
    answer was simple--to provide the Secretary with timely and
    accurate financial information that allows him to make prudent,
    well-informed decisions so that we can legally and responsibly
    steward the taxpayer dollars that the Congress entrusts to us
    to advance America's energy interests.
        I would like to share with you a little bit of the story
    that brought me here today. I grew up on a small farm in Rigby,
    Idaho. I am the first person in my family to earn a college
    degree. I studied accounting on a Naval ROTC scholarship at the
    University of Utah. Eager for challenge and discipline, I chose
    to serve in the United States Marines after graduation. The
    Marine Corps wisely put this round peg in a round hole, making
    me a financial management officer. I proudly led Marines in
    Hawaii and California and deployed to Kuwait as the comptroller
    for the contingency Operation Desert Thunder.
        I left active duty, a month later exchanged wedding vows,
    and two days later, my husband Scott and I were on our way to
    his next assignment in the Netherlands. As the wife of a Marine
    infantry officer and a mom of three, every couple of years, I
    had to pack up our house and kids--often by myself--quit my
    job, and start over someplace new. And through it all, I was
    able to continue to pursue my professional passion--using
    accounting to drive business decisions.
        In Europe, I worked as a financial manager in a
    multinational IT firm. In North Carolina, we experienced the
    shock of 9/11. My husband deployed to the Middle East, and I
    was called back to active duty. In Kansas, I earned an M.B.A.
    from Colorado State University, graduating at the top of my
    class, and staying on as a remote instructor, a job I could
    take with me. In the Sierra of eastern California, I commuted
    over an 8,000-foot mountain pass, with morning sickness and
    altitude sickness, to serve as a county deputy controller, and
    in southern California, I worked in the energy sector as a
    senior financial analyst for a nuclear generation plant and a
    major public utility. I became and am a Certified Public
    Accountant.
        When the Marine Corps brought us to Washington, DC, we
    decided it was time to give our children the stability that we
    had when we grew up, so we settled down. I started over as a
    junior contractor, reviewing Army pay records on a laptop at a
    crowded conference room table with 20 other analysts. I was
    soon recruited to work on the Air Force health services
    financial remediation team and then entered the federal
    workforce at the Defense Health Agency. My performance at DHA
    led to a senior executive position with the Department of the
    Air Force, overseeing financial operations and audit
    remediation. Since July of last year, I have served as the
    Deputy Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Defense,
    where we have made great strides in bringing the entire
    Department closer to a clean audit opinion.
        If confirmed, I look forward to bringing my broad financial
    experience in both government and the private sector to the
    Department of Energy. If confirmed, I pledge that I will apply
    the highest standards of fiduciary responsibility for the funds
    entrusted by this Congress. I will do everything in my power to
    work with this Committee and Congress to facilitate the
    oversight required by our Constitution. And with that, Mr.
    Chairman, I look forward to answering any questions the
    Committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Pierce follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Pierce.
        Mr. Prochaska.

    STATEMENT OF CONNER PROCHASKA, NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
     ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Mr. Prochaska. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and
    distinguished members of the Committee, it is an honor and a
    privilege to appear here today as President Trump's nominee to
    serve as Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency at
    the Department of Energy, or ARPA-E. I would like to thank
    President Trump and Secretary Wright for the confidence and
    trust that they have placed in me with this nomination.
        Before I begin, I would like to introduce the most
    important people in my life--my family. Here today with me is
    the love of my life, who is the most amazing wife, mother, and
    true life partner I could ever imagine. Kate, I am in awe of
    your ability to balance a successful career and provide a
    loving home for our family. I love you and thank you. Also here
    today are my four-year-old son, Crawford, and my two-year-old
    daughter, Henley, whom you have already heard from. They are
    the light of my life, and my world spins around them, whether I
    want it to or not. I would also like to recognize my parents,
    who have joined us from Texas. They have protected, provided,
    and guided me throughout my life. Mom and Dad, the words
    ``thank you'' can never express the gratitude I have for the
    sacrifices you both made to raise me and my three amazing
    brothers, Frankie, Tate, and Joey, who are home with their
    families in Texas, watching. And I would like to thank the
    Honorable Paul Dabbar for attending and for all those who
    texted their support over the last few days for this effort. It
    means the world.
        As an Eagle Scout from a patriotic family, I was instilled
    with a sense of service at a young age. The sense of service
    was further ingrained during my time at Texas A&M, where the
    core values of excellence, integrity, leadership, loyalty,
    respect, and selfless service are paramount, and I strive to
    live them every day. My love for the United States led me to be
    commissioned in the United States Navy, where I saw firsthand
    the devastating effects of energy scarcity. The Navy was also
    where I was first acquainted with the DOE, through the nuclear
    weapons program as a Counter-Weapons of Mass Destruction
    Intelligence Officer. Following law school, I was honored to
    serve in President Trump's first term as ARPA-E's Chief of
    Staff and Senior Advisor, ushering in many of the programs and
    projects that exist today at ARPA-E, including the first
    nuclear technology projects.
        After my time at ARPA-E, I was privileged to be selected as
    the Department's first Chief Commercialization Officer and also
    the Director of the Office of Technology Transitions. In this
    role, I worked closely with this Committee and staff on
    ushering DOE technology out of labs and into the daily lives of
    Americans, maximizing their impact, from Augusta to Albuquerque
    to Anchorage. Following my time at DOE, I continued my career
    in emerging technologies, as I helped co-found a quantum
    technology company spun out of Caltech.
        If confirmed, it will be a true humbling honor to lead the
    talented, innovative, and dedicated team at ARPA-E. When I left
    ARPA-E to become the Department's Chief Commercialization
    Officer, I told the staff that the fact that my name would be
    associated with theirs and the organization was one of the
    proudest accomplishments of my professional career, and I feel
    the same today. As members of this Committee and staff are well
    aware, energy and critical technologies are at an inflection
    point. Quantum, artificial intelligence, fusion, small modular
    reactors, geothermal--the list can go on, but these
    technologies will fundamentally change how the country and the
    world consume and produce energy. The Department of Energy's
    role in advancing these technologies through our work with our
    national labs, industry partners, and the university ecosystem
    has never been more critical. ARPA-E is uniquely positioned to
    lead high-risk, high-reward research, leading to technological
    developments that will better human lives throughout the United
    States and across the globe.
        The Trump Administration's forward-leaning approach to
    innovation and technology will require an interagency effort to
    ensure the United States continues to spearhead energy and
    critical and emerging technologies around the world. ARPA-E's
    unique authorities and structure will allow for flexibility and
    nimble action to address these challenges in a timely and
    effective manner.
        If confirmed, I intend to work closely with this Committee
    and Congress to effectively and efficiently lead ARPA-E and its
    talented and dedicated staff, who I consider the elite of the
    energy research community, to help drive innovation, maintain
    American leadership in critical technology areas, and unleash
    American dominance.
        Chairman, under Secretary Wright's leadership, we will not
    fumble.
        Thank you for your time and the opportunity to appear
    before you today. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Prochaska follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thanks so much, Mr. Prochaska.
        Dr. Mamula, we will hear from you next.

     STATEMENT OF DR. NED MAMULA, NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
           U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Dr. Mamula. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and
    Committee members all, good morning, and thank you very, very
    much for your time and the opportunity to be in front of this
    Committee. I am very honored and humbled to be here and very
    proud of the agency that I have been nominated to lead, the
    U.S. Geological Survey. My deepest thanks to Secretary Burgum
    and President Trump for the confidence they have reposed in me.
        And Mr. Chairman, behind me are my wife Terri, my son Noah,
    and his wife Mariah. My son Aaron is joining us remotely, and
    my friend J.J. Brown is with us as well, and they have been a
    great source of strength.
        But for me, the path to today has been basically an
    incredible personal and professional journey, starting out as a
    steelworker in my native Pittsburgh before attending college,
    becoming an entry-level geologist, and later working in the
    energy industry all over the country and the world. My academic
    work included major research in studies in Iceland and later in
    Wyoming's Bighorn Basin as part of my training at Penn State
    and Texas A&M University--two of our country's premier geology
    programs. Years later, I was privileged to help stand up a new
    mineral sustainability division within DOE Fossil Energy,
    established for the purpose of characterizing ore deposits for
    their critical mineral and rare earth element content. Then,
    for the past three years, I have been serving as Chief
    Geologist at GreenMet. Finally, Mr. Chairman, my co-author Ann
    Bridges and I produced two recent thought-provoking books on
    the issue of America's critical mineral import dependence and
    our desperately needed path to mineral independence.
        Mr. Chairman, I am ready for this next assignment at the
    Geological Survey, should I be confirmed. That agency, the U.S.
    Geological Survey, or ``the Survey'' as we USGS veterans
    affectionately call it, is one of the oldest and most storied
    of our federal agencies. It is 150 years old. The success of
    the four great geological surveys of the American West during
    the 1870s provided the impetus for President Rutherford Hayes
    to sign--on March 3, 1879--the congressional bill appropriating
    money for the formation of the U.S. Geological Survey within
    the Department of the Interior. President Hayes's signature
    approved the Organic Act of the U.S. Geological Survey, a
    unique combination of mission responsibilities elegantly
    described in only 19 words, which are: ``classification of the
    public lands, examination of the geological structure, mineral
    resources, and products of the national domain.'' These Organic
    Act functions were critical in 1879 because the Federal
    Government had title to more than a billion acres of land
    across the West, of which only 200 million acres, or about 17
    percent, had been surveyed. But after decades of adding more
    states and more federal lands, approximately four-fifths, or 80
    percent, of our country still does not have geological map
    coverage at a scale that is necessary for detailed exploration
    of minerals and other resources. Therefore, we can appreciate
    more fully the absolute importance of the USGS Organic Act
    today, and the need to laser focus our attention on the hard
    work of geologic mapping, discovery of energy and mineral
    resources, and inventorying other products or endowments of our
    national domain.
        Mr. Chairman, the USGS appears to be more important today
    than it was in 1879, particularly given the recent explosion of
    demand for energy, critical minerals, rare earth elements, and
    technology metals, not to mention America's very, very risky
    critical mineral import overreliance, much of it from
    adversarial nations. Little wonder America's national security
    and economic stability will remain highly dependent on the
    original mission of the U.S. Geological Survey.
        As our Secretary Doug Burgum says, ``Map Baby Map!'' and he
    is absolutely correct because the all-important geologic
    mapping must always precede the long road of exploration,
    discovery, and startup production of energy and minerals.
    Therefore, the Survey needs to dramatically reinforce its
    institutional strength in mapping across geology, but also in
    the other core missions.
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, leading one of our
    nation's preeminent scientific agencies has never been and will
    never be easy. But my love and support for it, and the strong
    support of my USGS colleagues, my fellow scientists, and
    others, will be extremely helpful, should I be confirmed.
    Furthermore, I pledge to this Committee, to Secretary Burgum,
    and especially to President Trump, who graciously nominated me
    to this post, to uphold the USGS mission to the best of my
    ability.
        Mr. Chairman, with that, I look forward to your Committee's
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Mamula follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Mamula.
        I like your description, by the way, of the Survey. The
    insiders call it ``the Survey.'' That's great. I had a friend
    years ago who was a big fan of Mountain Dew, and I asked him
    whether he agreed with the assessment that it was the ``nectar
    of the gods.'' And his response was curious. It reminded me of
    what you just said. He said, ``Yes, but the gods just call it
    nectar, because to them, that's what it is.'' So ``the Survey''
    it is.
        All right, we will now begin alternating rounds of five-
    minute questions. Republicans, then Democrats, in order of
    seniority, subject to the earlybird rule, and I will begin.
        Mr. Brightbill, why don't we start with you? Let's talk
    about NEPA for a moment. NEPA is a significant law and one that
    has to be followed. It requires agencies to ``ensure that
    presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may
    be given appropriate consideration in decision-making, along
    with economic and technical considerations.'' That's from NEPA,
    Section 102, of course. Now, some NEPA experts argue, based on
    the plain text of that, that if a cooperating agency is
    substantively analyzing an environmental effect so that it can
    issue a permit, let's say, for example, a 404 permit under the
    Clean Water Act, then the agency need not assess the effects of
    the action on the waters covered by the 404 permit because
    those effects are not presently unquantified, or to whatever
    degree and whatever circumstances in which they are not
    presently unquantified.
        I know that you are no stranger to NEPA, having worked
    previously in various government and private-sector positions
    in the law, working in this area, so I would welcome your
    thoughts on this observation.
        Mr. Brightbill. Yes, thank you very much, Senator, and
    first of all, thank you very much for taking the time on Monday
    evening to meet with me prior to the hearing today, and as you
    know, based on our discussions, I absolutely agree that NEPA
    reform is a critical need for us to ultimately move forward in
    our reform of infrastructure and advancement of energy. I know
    a variety of bills have been circulated and proposals
    circulated on the Hill, but as someone who has both worked in
    government, litigating a tremendous volume of NEPA cases,
    candidly, once you are in the Federal Government and at the
    Environment and Natural Resources Division, as well as an
    individual who has litigated NEPA over the years on behalf of
    private entities and consulted many, many more than I have even
    actually litigated, there is a lot of talk about permitting
    reform.
        Permitting reform is really a euphemism when you actually
    go and talk to industry players about the risks for NEPA
    reform. And NEPA reform really ought to be a euphemism for NEPA
    litigation reform because it is the NEPA litigation that
    creates the unquantifiable and incalculable risk of undertaking
    NEPA. Based on my many years of experience working both with
    federal agencies as well as private-sector entities, they are
    happy to try to quantify risks and assess risks, but
    ultimately, the real problem with NEPA is the unknowable back-
    end tail that comes from a judicial review system that has been
    created by common law, rather than really by a congressionally
    designed review apparatus, Senator. And as you and I discussed,
    I think that's an area where there is a lot of opportunity for
    reform that could advance all manner of energy infrastructure
    projects--transmission, generation, distribution, throughout.
        The Chairman. Right, great observations. So it's more than
    just permitting. Very often, more specifically, people are
    referring to NEPA, and when they are referring to the delays
    they encounter, those are more often the result of the
    litigation stage, rather than the pre-issuance of the record of
    decision stage. That's helpful.
        Mr. Prochaska, let's turn to you next. During the first
    Trump administration, you were Chief of Staff and Senior
    Advisor for ARPA-E, the entity to which you have now been
    nominated. As I understand it, in the past, ARPA-E has funded
    R&D within the nuclear space, and if we are to meet the
    significant anticipated demand for baseload electric power in
    the coming decade, innovations in the nuclear sector could play
    a really critical role. Can you talk to us a little bit about
    the work of ARPA-E and the things that ARPA-E funded during the
    first Trump administration to increase the efficiency and
    output of traditional generating resources, such as nuclear?
        Mr. Prochaska. Thank you very much for the question,
    Chairman, and thank you also for the time in your office. It
    was very valuable to hear your insights on ARPA-E and where we
    can go with the energy dominance that we are looking for.
        It was a privilege in the first Trump administration to be
    part of the leadership team of ARPA-E, and in that role, one of
    the proudest programs and projects we started was about
    advanced reactors and understanding, simulating, and testing
    some of the more untraditional problems that come with those
    advanced reactors. But one of the key things that we did there
    was, we worked with the Office of Nuclear Energy to make sure
    that we weren't duplicating efforts within the Department. And
    I think one of the things that I would look forward to, if
    confirmed for ARPA-E, is because of my knowledge from my time
    at OTT and as Chief Commercialization Officer at the
    Department, I worked with every single office and every single
    lab at the Department of Energy, and I know the complex to a
    very, very good degree. And I come into ARPA-E with eyes wide
    open of what ARPA-E's capabilities are, what other offices in
    the Department do, and how we can help to work on the advanced
    high-risk, high-reward items that need to be attacked, whether
    it's in nuclear, whether it's in fossil energy, whether it's in
    fusion, whether it's in small modular reactors, which is
    nuclear, or geothermal. You can go through the list, but the
    ARPA-E portfolio is broad--the authorities are broad--and if
    confirmed, I intend to make sure that we attack all of those
    technologies as best as we possibly can.
        The Chairman. Great. Thank you.
        I have more questions, including for the other two I
    haven't asked questions to yet. Hopefully, we will be able to
    get to those in a subsequent round later in the hearing, but in
    the interest of time, since I am over, I am going to hand it
    over to Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Brightbill, at the legal direction of Congress, DOE has
    developed energy efficiency standards that have saved American
    families hundreds of dollars annually on utility costs. The
    current Administration is set on reversing these cost-saving
    efforts, and announced this week that they will eliminate many
    of these standards, which will undoubtedly raise energy costs
    for American families. Do you believe the actions announced by
    the Administration are consistent with the federal judge's
    orders to update those standards, and how would you approach
    enforcing energy efficiency standards in your new role, if you
    are confirmed?
        Mr. Brightbill. Senator, thank you.
        At this point, I am not at the Department of Energy, and so
    I have not been advising the Secretary and the program managers
    who are at the agency at this time regarding the actions they
    have undertaken. And I have not had an opportunity to review
    those executive orders or the legal bases for the actions that
    have been taken. I know within the context of those statutes,
    there are statutory reforms that were undertaken by Congress in
    the later part of the early aughts that related to those
    statutes that actually enhanced the capacity of the Department
    to consider economic considerations, and some of that post-
    dates some of the case law that I know is on the books and
    which many people point to in that area.
        So, at this point, Senator, what I can commit to you is
    that, should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed as the
    General Counsel, that I will, of course, work with existing
    career staff and advisors at the Office of General Counsel to
    understand their existing legal reviews and then advise the
    Secretary and the program officials who are responsible for
    those policy decisions on their obligations under the laws and
    statutes, as well as the authorities that they have.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Prochaska, with electricity demand
    expected to grow for the next decade, I think many of us
    believe that we are going to need every electron that we can
    get for the foreseeable future. If confirmed, how will you make
    sure that ARPA-E is investing in a complete portfolio of next-
    generation energy technologies and not picking winners and
    losers?
        Mr. Prochaska. Thank you very much for the question,
    Senator, and that is a very big part of the way ARPA-E
    operates. The way ARPA-E operates is, we bring in the best
    program managers that we can find. And those program managers
    bring the best ideas that they can, and they are forced through
    a crucible of internal debates and external reviews to come out
    with some of the best possible programs and projects we
    possibly can. And part of that analysis is, how does this make
    sense in the overall energy portfolio and move the ball forward
    on behalf of the United States and the world, because these
    technologies do go and help the world at the end of the day, in
    many cases.
        And so, to answer your question, one of the reasons is, we
    are going to take the best projects, and I promise that that's
    going to be the process with which, if I am confirmed, ARPA-E
    continues to move forward with the best projects, and not
    picking winners and losers necessarily, but understanding what
    makes sense in the energy portfolio that is affordable, secure,
    reliable, and gets us to the end goals.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Brightbill, Congress has important
    oversight responsibilities over the Department, obviously. If
    confirmed, will you commit to responding to members of this
    Committee's request for information regarding DOE's compliance
    with the law?
        Mr. Brightbill. Senator, if I am confirmed, I can--if I am
    fortunate enough to be confirmed--yes, I can assure you that we
    will comply with the law, and insofar as the Department is
    required to make responses to requests, we will do so.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you. That is the right answer.
        On May 5th, I, along with a number of other Members of
    Congress, sent Secretary Wright a letter regarding the
    Department's suspension of energy programs, cancellation of
    executed awards and contracts, as well as mass reductions in
    staffing and changes to contracting policies, and I very much
    look forward to receiving a full and complete response to that
    letter.
        The Chairman. Senator McCormick.
        Senator McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Heinrich, and welcome and congratulations to our four
    nominees. Mr. Brightbill, good to see you in Pennsylvania, and
    I think our fathers may have served together when your dad was
    Majority Leader. So it's great to have you here, and another
    Pennsylvanian and two members of our Armed Services. We have
    got a great lineup here.
        I want to start with you, Mr. Mamula. The most recent U.S.
    Government assessment of the Marcellus Shale, from 2019,
    showcased the effects of technological advancements. In that
    assessment, the government estimated natural gas availability
    in the Marcellus rose from two trillion to 84 trillion to 97
    trillion in under 20 years. Now, knowing where those energy
    resources are located and how much exists is crucial to
    informing our strategy for energy dominance and energy
    independence. Unfortunately, USGS government resource
    assessments can lag behind industry developments. So my
    question is, what is your plan to ensure timely and regionally
    relevant updates to those assessments, and do you anticipate a
    need to adapt the resource evaluation framework to better
    account for unconventional sources of natural gas, like shale
    gas?
        Dr. Mamula. Thank you for that question. Thank you very
    much, Senator McCormick.
        The thing that people need to understand is that technology
    sweeps through one field after another, after another, and it
    swept through the oil industry. It is sweeping through mining,
    timbering, and many other areas. When technology sweeps
    through, we have to back up and look at another methodology or
    modify the methodologies used to do resource assessments
    because the newer technologies allow us to basically get at
    more of that resource, and eventually, when proven, we call it
    a reserve. So, if confirmed, I want to make sure of the date of
    these resource assessments at USGS, what they contain, and how
    they could be improved, and, most importantly, do we have a
    bridge over to the private sector? Do we understand that
    technology that's right under our noses? And have our
    scientists gone out into the fracking fields and other places
    and looked at these things? Very important, and it's going to
    inform the way we do resource evaluation--actually, resource
    assessment, as we call it. So, that is an absolute definite
    thing that I would do, if confirmed, right away.
        Senator McCormick. Thank you.
        Dr. Mamula. Yes, sir.
        Senator McCormick. Mr. Prochaska, let me turn to energy
    demand and the fact that it's expected to grow radically,
    primarily driven by AI data center demand, and I believe
    nuclear energy, in which, of course, Pennsylvania plays a very
    dominant role, will help meet that demand. Pennsylvania is
    second in the nation for nuclear energy production and home to
    much of the technology included in every nuclear energy reactor
    in the United States. You have already talked about this in
    previous questions, but let me ask you to be a little more
    specific. How do you anticipate ARPA-E supporting the
    development of nuclear energy technologies, and in particular,
    innovations in fuel cycle technologies, and how would you think
    about the process for prioritizing and investing most heavily
    in the appropriate technologies?
        Mr. Prochaska. Thank you very much for the question,
    Senator.
        Going back to one of the things that I worked on, that came
    to fruition following my time at ARPA-E as Chief of Staff, was
    working on expanding some of the authorities of ARPA-E to
    address some of these challenges, exactly, particularly nuclear
    waste and the cycle that exists there. As the industry
    develops, there will be--and this is where kind of the tricky
    part of ARPA-E is, because we want to move technologies into
    industry, but we also want to work with industry partners to
    understand what they are not doing. And so, what I believe
    would help that cycle, and to answer your question, is engaging
    the industry, engaging the people that are on the cusp or even
    doing some of these activities and understand what their big
    pain points are and build that relationship, which is a lot of
    what I did as the Chief Commercialization Officer of the
    Department, is work with public-private partnerships, work with
    private industry to understand where their pain points are to
    make sure that we are not doing something that we are just
    taking something off the plate of private industry that they
    could do, but something that really is the ARPA-E motto, high-
    risk, high-reward technology, to get further down the path of
    making those actionable and efficient technologies that can
    really utilize and maximize the nuclear fuel, the nuclear
    process, and the nuclear industry as a whole.
        Senator McCormick. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I believe Senator Hickenlooper is up next.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to
    all of you for your willingness to put yourselves through this
    and take on these challenges.
        Mr. Brightbill, I am a strong proponent of bipartisan
    permitting reform that includes targeted litigation reforms on
    various issues. In the House bill, they have proposed a radical
    overhaul of our judicial review system by proposing a kind of
    pay-to-play, or pay-for-play scheme. In your view, if someone
    pays, or a company pays 125 percent of the estimated costs of
    your environmental review, the idea is that judicial review
    would no longer apply. Do you believe that allowing companies
    to pay for the right to avoid judicial oversight or judicial
    scrutiny gives communities and tribes sufficient ability to
    amend or challenge or change specific projects?
        Mr. Brightbill. Senator, first of all, I appreciate the
    opportunity to continue to talk about NEPA reform. As Senator
    Lee knows from my time in his office, I could geek out about
    this for a very, very long time. As to the specific House bill
    that you are referencing, I candidly have not seen the bill or
    the provision that you are referring to, and based on what you
    are describing to me, I am not, candidly, able to respond to it
    in total because I am not aware of what the ultimate policy----
        Senator Hickenlooper. It's just basically if you pay a
    higher rate, you are exempt from judicial oversight. In other
    words, the courts have no role in approving the permit.
        Mr. Brightbill. I think, Senator, I candidly want to look
    at the entirety of the bill and what the other reforms are and
    see how they tie in----
        Senator Hickenlooper. Okay.
        Mr. Brightbill [continuing]. With other provisions of the
    bill before I would opine as to that particular provision and
    want to understand the total context.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Okay.
        Mr. Prochaska, I am a big fan of ARPA-E. I think you are
    going to--you know, you have the opportunity to catalyze
    transformational energy technologies and accelerate some of the
    commercialization of those things, and I think that's just
    going to be a big part of our future here, and hopefully it
    will involve a lot of Colorado companies in there as well. How
    can you ensure ARPA-E continues to serve as a springboard for
    these high-impact startups, the companies that really can be
    transformational, without sufficient long-term dependence on
    financing--federal financing?
        Mr. Prochaska. Senator, first off, thank you very much for
    the question. And I have no doubt that Colorado will play a
    huge role in that ecosystem. One of the things, from an
    outsider's point of view, that I have always admired about
    Colorado is the major research institutions, whether it's NREL,
    Colorado School of Mines, Colorado State, University of
    Colorado--the list goes on. All are very well coordinated, not
    to mention outside of energy, but the quantum that is going on
    in the state is quite fascinating as well. So I commend the
    state on the efforts that go into that.
        To answer your question, I talked a little bit about it
    earlier, that part of the crucible of becoming an ARPA-E
    project is the review process. And what we also do is, once you
    are an ARPA-E project, if confirmed, we will continue this
    active project management. That is continuous evaluation of
    these projects. It is a high-risk, high-reward effort, and you
    talked about how do we make sure some of these companies and
    products and technologies become companies. Part of that high-
    risk, high-reward means there is a high-reward at the end, but
    in between the high risk and the high reward, a lot of things
    fall off, and that's part of kind of the ARPA-E ethos, which
    is, we are going to continue to actively manage projects, put
    the best minds toward it, look at it with a fresh point of view
    as often as possible.
        And then, to your last point, to make sure it's not on a
    long-term federal pipeline of funding to continue on for
    eternity----
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right----
        Mr. Prochaska. We want to make sure we are engaging with--
    whether it's venture capital, investors--that we are continuing
    to keep communicating with them and keep them educated on what
    we are doing at ARPA-E.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you.
        And Dr. Mamula, first, just an idle curiosity--you went to
    Penn State. Did you do field geology camp?
        Dr. Mamula. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Which one did you go to?
        Dr. Mamula. Well, they had Yellowstone/Bighorn.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Research----
        Dr. Mamula. They also----
        Senator Hickenlooper. So you went to the YBRA?
        Dr. Mamula. YBRA, I have been there and I have also been to
    the other one across the Appalachians.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right, yeah, I haven't been to that
    one, but I did do my geological field work through the
    Yellowstone/Bighorn. There can be no closer tie than having
    done the same field geology camp.
        USGS is obviously critical for so much we are working on. I
    am going to be very brief in this question. Water-focused
    science is key for us in Colorado and the drought prone West,
    just because if you can't measure something, you are not going
    to be able to manage it. And yet, we have seen severe cuts at
    the USGS that threaten this essential work and the integrity of
    these long-term data resources. Keeping that data in place is
    critical. Are you willing to say, absolutely, you will make
    that a priority to maintain those systems of measure that we
    have been using and to expand those datasets?
        Dr. Mamula. Oh, Senator, absolutely. Look----
        Senator King. Can you get your mic a little closer?
        Dr. Mamula. Yes, Senator, this has to be a priority, and if
    confirmed, I am going to make it my business to make sure it
    is. Now, the dataset integrity, is what you are getting at?
        Senator Hickenlooper. Well, the cuts in funding--they have
    cut almost a third of the budget, and part of that means that
    they are talking about just getting--we don't need to save this
    data because it doesn't seem relevant now. Whereas, in science,
    mostly, as you know, oftentimes data that doesn't seem relevant
    today, five years from now, seems really relevant.
        Dr. Mamula. Right. If confirmed, and I am going out there,
    and we are going to look at our data collection, and you know,
    with the capacity of data storage today, there is really no
    need to dispose of data. We can hang on to data as long as we
    need to, and by the way, there is plenty of data that can be
    digitized and put to work, again, years and years after it was
    first published. So this is a priority. USGS is a data factory.
    So this is--what is produced there should be also saved and----
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you.
        Dr. Mamula. Yes.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I appreciate it very much.
        And Ms. Pierce, I have questions for you, but I will put
    them in writing.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. We will turn now to Senator Hoeven, who twice
    in the last couple of weeks has been my stunt double as I have
    been called into other hearings.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. I am told he is going to do his questions
    today entirely in Spanish, which should be exciting.
        Senator Hoeven. Muchas gracias, mi amigo.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate both
    of you. Thanks to all of our witnesses who are here.
        Mr. Mamula, thanks for coming in to visit with me
    yesterday. And I do have to warn you before Hickenlooper gets
    out of the room, that you have got to be careful with him
    because I think he is a geologist too. So you can't spoof him
    like you do the rest of us, you know? He knows his stuff. And
    he was a Governor, too, so we really like him a lot.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hoeven. So thanks again for being here. You know
    the story in the Bakken, in my state?
        Dr. Mamula. Right.
        Senator Hoeven. You know, when I was Governor back there in
    2000, you know, there wasn't the horizontal drilling, and the
    shale plays could be produced from a technological standpoint--
    you could get oil out of them, but you couldn't do it on a
    commercially viable basis. And so, we actually started with our
    state geological survey to do that analysis. It actually had
    been done off some work Price had done in Colorado, in Senator
    Hickenlooper's state, which you are probably familiar with, and
    then, we followed up at the state level and actually started
    making inroads. And they tried in Montana a little bit because
    they thought maybe the geology was a little better, but it
    proved it wasn't, plus the fact that they had more regulatory
    burden over there because we really created an environment with
    incentives and a favorable regulatory environment.
        But the geological analysis was critical, and then, once we
    finally got it going, we got the U.S. Geological Survey to
    engage. And then, once they did it, of course, then companies
    really started coming in, and it took off. That was about 2006,
    2008. So it shows the importance of what you do in terms of
    producing more energy in this country because that was
    critical. And I kept trying to get them to come in, and that is
    how we eventually did it.
        So now we are in situations in the shale plays where we
    have to put legs on those shale plays, right, in the
    unconventional areas, because of the declines and the curves
    and all that. So, will you work with us and tell us how you
    will work with us to make sure that we are able to go in with
    tertiary recovery methods? So for example, pulling the
    CO2 off coal plants and putting it downhole for a
    CO2 flood. And talk about that, because this is a
    big deal if we are going to get this energy dominance and
    sustain it. Talk to me about how you can help us get that done.
        Dr. Mamula. Okay. Great question, Senator Hoeven, and thank
    you.
        When you add the North Dakota Geological Survey and the
    schools that you have there to my Texas A&M and Penn State, we
    are ready to rock on these reserve estimates.
        Senator Hoeven. No pun intended with the ready to rock?
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Mamula. But Senator, the more the USGS is engaged with
    our industry, the better for both sides of that equation. Look,
    the USGS has a great ability to look at a map, produce a cross
    section, and give us a 3D block view of that piece of real
    estate and the minerals, oil, gas, and other endowments in
    that. So in the case of North Dakota, I think, if there was any
    hesitation, perhaps maybe part of that was not on federal land,
    maybe they felt they wouldn't, you know, but federal land,
    absolutely, that is the USGS Organic Act. Go off of federal
    land, maybe it wasn't quite as--but if I am confirmed, Senator
    Hoeven, I am going out there, and it's going to be all hands on
    deck for all lands because there is no need or reason to strand
    a resource.
        And to your point on tertiary recovery, if we have excess
    carbon dioxide here and a need for it over here to drive
    tertiary recovery, we get a two-fer. We take it from here and
    we put it over there. We don't want to waste our resources.
    Things that don't come out of the ground, Senator, as I said to
    you yesterday, their value is essentially zero.
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, no, that's right-on. It's a two-fer.
    Would you be willing to come to North Dakota with me? We have
    state, we have--fortunately, we have a lot of private, and I
    know that's a frustration for our Chairman, because they have
    so much public, but we have a lot of private, state, Native
    American, and federal, and they are all intertwined, and one
    can impede the other if we don't all work together.
        Dr. Mamula. If confirmed, Senator, I commit to you to come
    up there and look at it, and I commit to the Survey that we
    reexamine land ownership and maybe dispatch with the
    boundaries. As far as geology, they are kind of artificial
    anyway.
        Senator Hoeven. Right.
        Dr. Mamula. An ore deposit doesn't care whether it's
    located on federal, state, or private land, but it's sitting
    there saying, ``Wow, develop me.'' So this is something I will
    look into, and you have my word on that.
        Senator Hoeven. Mr. Chairman, just one final quick
    question, if I can beg your indulgence?
        The geothermal--we are doing a lot more in geothermal. Is
    there any synergy that you see between the energy industry, in
    terms of oil and gas, and the geothermal? Opportunities?
        Dr. Mamula. Senator Hoeven, sometimes if you have an
    abandoned well in the oil industry, in the energy industry, or
    a gas well, oil well, whatever, that may well serve a dual
    purpose. Maybe it has another life and it has deepened into the
    geothermal pool that's available. In North Dakota, I don't
    know, we are going to take a look at your geothermal resources
    there. Then, we are going to say, okay, if we can get this
    amount, then you have geothermal reserves, and then the easiest
    way to get to it is maybe to use something that's already in
    place.
        Senator, if I may, it's kind of like mine tailings or metal
    mine dumps laying on the ground. To me, they are nothing but
    ore deposits on the surface. And it's the same with your
    geothermal resources there. If we can get at it in an easier
    way, we should take advantage of it, absolutely. And you have
    my commitment to work with you on that.
        Senator Hoeven. Right, some of our wells are two miles
    deep, and then we go out vertically for three miles or more in
    multiple directions, with 12 miles on one pad. So it might
    create some opportunities.
        Dr. Mamula. I think it's setting a stage for another energy
    play in North Dakota, i.e., geothermal.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes, thank you, sir.
        Again, thanks, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it.
        The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Prochaska, let me start with you. Do you support an
    all-of-the-above energy approach?
        Mr. Prochaska. Thank you very much for the question,
    Senator.
        I support an all-of-the-above energy approach if it's
    reliable, affordable, and secure. I think we need to look at
    the portfolio.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Do you think solar and wind are
    reliable and affordable and secure?
        Mr. Prochaska. There are some cases where that very well
    could be and there are also enabling technologies that could
    maybe enhance certain technologies--not particularly those
    two--but I think that is part of the opportunity ahead of us is
    to make sure we find out what is keeping, if anything, from
    affordable, reliable, and secure technologies and help that.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Are there any specific areas of research that you believe
    ARPA-E must prioritize to remain competitive?
        Mr. Prochaska. I would have to look at the portfolio
    because your question is as if we have to maintain. I am not
    well in depth in the whole portfolio right now, as it stands,
    from many years ago when I was there. And looking at those
    projects as they evolve, that would be part of the evaluation.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        In your written testimony, you acknowledged that new
    critical technologies are at an inflection point. I couldn't
    agree more, absolutely. And please know that Nevada entities
    have leveraged ARPA-E funding in recent years to uncover
    exciting solutions, such as innovative research with Nevada
    Gold Mines and the University of Nevada Reno to study new
    techniques for the separation of rare earth elements from ores.
    There is so much going on. There is so much opportunity. But
    here's my question for you. In President Trump's Fiscal Year
    2026 budget, he calls for a 57 percent cut to ARPA-E--a 57
    percent cut. So my question to you, if confirmed, how would you
    manage that, and what specific actions would you take to stand
    up for your agency and the tools it needs, and will you then
    have to make priorities on which areas of research that you
    would support? And I would be curious what those areas would
    be.
        Mr. Prochaska. Senator, I think within--to first start with
    the areas, I would not dare sit here today and say I know. I
    think in something like an ARPA-E, an advanced research
    projects agency, and this high-reward, high-risk technology,
    the most dangerous thing that someone can say is, particularly
    prior to----
        Senator Cortez Masto. Can I stop you? I'm sorry, because I
    only have so much time.
        Mr. Prochaska. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Cortez Masto. You keep talking about high-risk,
    high-reward. What is that? What projects are those? What are
    you talking about, specifically?
        Mr. Prochaska. I think it's the ability to put dollars for
    an exponential return to impact on the United States taxpayer
    and ensure that we are making the biggest bang for the buck.
    And really, shooting, as we talk about sometimes, moonshot-type
    technologies. To answer your question, we will maximize the
    resources that are at ARPA-E to make sure we are effectively
    and efficiently accomplishing the mission to deliver the best
    we possibly can for the U.S. taxpayer.
        Senator Cortez Masto. I only have so much time, so I am
    going to jump to--and I apologize, I don't get the chance to
    ask you all questions, so we will submit some for the record.
        But Ms. Pierce, I did have one for you, but we will submit
    it for the record because I know you are patiently waiting
    here.
        But there is one that I have to ask Dr. Mamula about
    because, as you know, Nevada is at the forefront of developing
    our nation's critical mineral supply chain and reducing
    dependence on China. And I have heard all of you comment to
    some extent that that is absolutely necessary. The mining
    industry in Nevada is bolstered by invaluable research
    conducted at our universities, including the Mackay School of
    Mines at the University of Nevada, Reno through grants from
    USGS programs such as Earth MRI, STATEMAP, and the National
    Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program. Our
    universities are able to create publicly available data
    regarding the location of critical mineral resources, to
    archive mineral compositions of different regions, and
    accelerate mine permitting by providing baseline geological
    data for prospective projects. I fear that without this
    research, Nevada and the rest of the United States may fall
    further behind in the race to develop reliable critical mineral
    supply chains.
        Unfortunately, in the President's Fiscal Year 2026 budget,
    he proposes to slash the USGS by about half a billion dollars
    and cut funding to universities. Yet, it says the Agency will
    focus on achieving dominance in energy and critical minerals.
    Now, I understand that you are not currently at the Agency, but
    can you explain how cutting critical research like this will
    actually help the U.S. achieve dominance in energy and critical
    minerals, and how would you manage that cut to your budget?
        Dr. Mamula. Senator Cortez Masto, thank you for the
    question, and by the way, Nevada is a great geology state. I go
    there every year, and I know the people in your state
    geological survey.
        To answer your question, let me take it this way--the
    federal funds from USGS flow down to the state geological
    surveys. That's one of the greatest partnerships you can
    believe, and it's just fabulous. The state surveys are the
    engine behind much of our mapping. So we have state and federal
    working together. Senator, I am not privy, or I don't
    understand the nuances of the President's budget because I am
    not in there yet, but I will make it a very number one priority
    to look at that budget and make sure that we have the money to
    drive the program forward, which is the President's priority,
    that is, to make the critical minerals, rare earth, and
    technology metals a national priority because it is a national
    security priority, and that would be my focus from day one,
    minute one, when I walk in that building, if confirmed.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Will you promise me this? If you,
    once you get in there, and the cuts are made--and they are
    going to be significant cuts to you, including cuts to grant
    funding--that whatever little funds you do have for grant
    funding, that you do not make a decision that you are going to
    pick blue states over red states.
        Dr. Mamula. Senator, I need to take a look at that. I can't
    envision, when we do geology and funding and cooperation
    between state and federal, that there's a blue state/red
    state--Senator, let me just go on the record and say that
    critical minerals, our energy, our rare earths, and our
    technology metals--I hope, and sometimes secretly I pray, that
    this is the greatest non-partisan issue before us in our time.
    We have to----
        Senator Cortez Masto. And you would commit to keeping it
    non-partisan?
        Dr. Mamula. Senator, we are scientists, and if we get into
    the weeds of politics, it kind of spoils our credibility, and I
    would never do that to the USGS.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        One of the sages of New England, Ralph Waldo Emerson, said,
    ``What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you
    say.'' I have never been at a hearing where what is being done
    is at such variance with what is being said.
        Mr. Prochaska, you waxed eloquent about the talented and
    dedicated staff of ARPA-E and all the great work that they have
    done. Their budget is being cut by 57 percent. How do you
    justify all this nice talk about what you are going to do when
    your agency is being cut more than in half? You can talk until
    you are blue in the face, but what speaks here is--57 percent
    cut. Tell me--and you went through your entire testimony, all
    of your answers to your questions, until you got to Senator
    Cortez Masto, and never once mentioned renewables, the fastest
    growing, cheapest source of electricity in the United States
    today. And let me read from the budget document: ``Green New
    Scam technologies are not supported.'' That's in the ARPA-E
    budget document. ``Green New Scam technologies are not
    supported.'' That means no renewables, right? You've got an
    order from the President of the United States, no renewables.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Prochaska. That is not correct, Senator.
        Senator King. So, he didn't mean--what does he mean,
    ``Green New Scam'' technologies? He is talking about solar and
    wind. Everybody knows that.
        Mr. Prochaska. Senator, I can't opine on what the
    definition of that language is. I can commit to, if confirmed,
    that the ARPA-E and the portfolio that we investigate and look
    into will include all technologies that I mentioned to the
    Senator----
        Senator King. So, it was just a coincidence that when you
    listed the technologies, the nearest you got to renewables was
    a mention of geothermal last. You never mentioned solar and
    wind, and you used the code word ``reliable,'' which is a new
    code word for ``we don't like solar and wind because they are
    intermittent,'' but as you indicated in your answer to Senator
    Cortez Masto, when you have batteries with solar and wind, it
    is baseload. Is that correct?
        Mr. Prochaska. Senator, it very well could be. It depends
    on the situation. But the portfolio that we will investigate
    will include all technologies, and reliable is important to the
    energy that we need for the future to fund some of the emerging
    technologies that we have talked about.
        Senator King. I appreciate what you are saying here. What I
    am going to watch is what you do, because budgets are policy.
    And this budget, the policy of this budget is a drastic cut--
    drastic cut--more than half in ARPA-E, I think one of the most
    important agencies in the U.S. Government. It is where fracking
    started, the shale revolution started with research funds from
    the Department of Energy. And we are talking about a more than
    half cut. So I am going to watch what you do and not what you
    say.
        Now, Mr. Mamula, you talked about the importance of data
    and science and all of those kinds of things, and yet, there
    have been reports in the last few weeks that biological
    research in the USGS is being cut entirely and 25 Water Science
    Centers, which_stream gauges, measuring storms.
        [The reports referred to follow:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator King. I get the feeling this is like, if we don't
    measure anything on climate change, it will go away. Is that
    what is going on here?
        Dr. Mamula. I don't think so, Senator. Thanks for the
    question. Let's discuss it. Again, I am not at the Survey, but
    I want to take a look. If confirmed, I want to go out and look
    at each and every single program, its budget, and cuts
    proposed, and----
        Senator King. Well, somebody's already done that and cut
    your budget 37 percent before you even walk in the door.
        Dr. Mamula. Yeah, well, again----
        Senator King. That's done.
        Dr. Mamula. The cut----
        Senator King. Assuming Congress agrees, which, I hope they
    won't.
        Dr. Mamula. Yeah, I don't know about that either, I am not
    familiar. But the program, the contents of the program that has
    a cut associated with it, I am not familiar, I don't know
    what's being cut.
        Senator King. I thought you were pretty familiar with USGS.
        Dr. Mamula. I am, but I don't know what is----
        Senator King. Do you believe it's appropriate to cut all of
    their biological research programs?
        Dr. Mamula. Well, I have to see what they are talking
    about. If they are talking about----
        Senator King. All means all, as I understand.
        Dr. Mamula. Yeah, well, still, I would be more comfortable,
    once confirmed, looking at that and saying, okay, is this a cut
    deserved, or should we actually have a plus-up, or what?
        Senator King. How about eliminating 25 Water Research
    Centers around the country? Is that a good idea? You talked
    rhapsodically to Senator Hickenlooper about data and how
    important data is. This is critically important data that it
    appears we are not going to collect anymore.
        Dr. Mamula. I want to see again what cuts they are talking
    about. That will tell me where the data is either being cut or
    not being cut, and then what's left on the table, and then we
    say, yes, we can still do our mission with what has not been
    cut.
        Senator King. It looks to me like what is being cut is data
    that will be produced to demonstrate the danger of climate
    change to our economy, to our people, to our country, to our
    environment. And you know, not collecting the data doesn't mean
    the problem isn't going to be there. Collecting the data can
    alert us to where there are problems and where we can deal with
    them. I hope that you--you say you are going to look at this--
    the problem is, as I say, you are walking into a shop that has
    already been cut by more than a third.
        So, Mr. Chairman, you know, this isn't personal for you
    people. I don't know you. I am sure you want to do the right
    thing, but let's get real here and try to face the reality. And
    to come in here and talk, you know, about how wonderful USGS is
    and how wonderful ARPA-E is, which I think it is, at the same
    time that it's being cut, these two agencies are being cut--in
    one case by over 50 percent, in the other case by more than a
    third--it just doesn't pass the straight-face test.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thanks so much, Senator King.
        We are going to wrap up in a moment. Any additional
    questions that we may have had will be submitted in writing.
        Before I do the closing wrap-up, I am going to turn to
    Senator Heinrich for some additional thoughts.
        Senator Heinrich. I have a number of questions I will be
    happy to submit for the record for the rest of you. I think
    what you are hearing from Senator King and others on this panel
    is the fact that budgets are a reflection of our values. And
    what we see in this budget is a disregard for science. When you
    are saying that two of the most preeminent institutions of
    science that have benefited our economy over and over again
    should get an almost 40 percent and almost 60 percent cut, you
    are saying we don't value science. And I hope this Congress
    will send a very different message.
        The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Heinrich.
        I would like to thank the witnesses for attending today.
    Each of you comes with a wealth of knowledge and has been very
    helpful today. So thanks for your cooperation. Thanks to the
    Senators, also, for being here and taking the time to cast the
    votes and to question.
        Questions for the record for the hearing will be due by
    6:00 p.m. this evening. The record for the hearing will remain
    open for statements until 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 15.
        Thanks again to the members of the Committee. On behalf of
    the Committee, I am pleased to extend congratulations to all of
    the nominees, including those we recommended favorably to the
    floor today and those who have gone through the process today
    during the hearing portion.
        I look forward to working with all the Senators on the
    Committee as we continue to consider each of the President's
    nominees within the jurisdiction of the Committee in such a
    productive manner. I hope every Senator on the Committee will
    work with me to help persuade leadership on both sides of the
    aisle to bring these nominations to the floor as soon as
    possible.
        The meeting stands adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]