[Senate Hearing 111-160]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-160
MCNUTT AND MAJUMDAR NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, AND ARUN MAJUMDAR, TO BE DIRECTOR OF
THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
__________
OCTOBER 8, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-621 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 4
Farr, Hon. Sam, U.S. Representative From California.............. 5
McNutt, Marcia K., Ph.D., to be Director of the United States
Geological Society, Department of the Interior................. 8
Majumdar, Arun, Ph.D., to be Director of the Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy, Department of Energy................... 11
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 23
MCNUTT AND MAJUMDAR NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Let us go ahead with our hearing on Dr.
McNutt and Dr. Majumdar. Let me make a short statement about
the two of them and proceed with that.
Dr. Marcia McNutt, has been nominated to be the Director of
the Geological Survey. This is one of the Federal Government's
oldest scientific bodies, the principal source of scientific
information about our Nation's land, minerals, and water
resources, the second oldest office that is under this
committee's jurisdiction.
Dr. Arun Majumdar has been nominated to be the Director of
the Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Department of
Energy, ARPA-E as it is known. It was established by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to overcome technological barriers to the
development of advanced energy technologies, but the director's
post was left unfilled by the previous administration. If
confirmed, Mr. Majumdar will be its first director.
Both Dr. McNutt and Dr. Majumdar are extremely well
qualified for the positions to which the President has
nominated them. Dr. McNutt is currently the President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute and Professor of Marine Geophysics at both Stanford
University and the University of California at Santa Cruz.
Since earning her doctorate in earth sciences at the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, Dr. McNutt has also taught
geophysics at MIT, authored 90 scientific papers, has been
repeatedly recognized for her scientific achievements. If
confirmed, she will be the first woman to head the USGS in its
130-year history.
Dr. Majumdar is currently the Associate Laboratory Director
for Energy and Environment at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory and a professor of mechanical engineering and
material science and engineering at the University of
California at Berkeley.
Like Dr. McNutt, Dr. Majumdar is a highly distinguished
research scientist. In addition, he has been an entrepreneur,
has advised startup companies and venture capital firms in
Silicon Valley. He is also an authority on energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy storage.
I strongly support both nominees. I am pleased to welcome
them to our committee this morning.
Let me recognize Senator Murkowski for any statement she
would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator From Kansas
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski and
congratulations to both nominees for your selection to serve within the
Obama Administration
I'm extremely impressed with the experience both of you have in
your respected areas of science, and I hope you maintain your
commitment to the advancement of science from an objective viewpoint.
I support the goals you both have laid out in your written
testimony. I don't think anyone would argue with the importance of
studying the submarine areas off the coast of the United States to
better understand their resource potential, or providing scientific and
engineering innovations to advance energy efficiency and security.
But I ask that when you pursue these objectives, you do so from an
unbiased objective approach that takes into account all scientific
studies absent political ideologies, and hopefully therefore, moving
our nation towards the goal of greater energy independence.
I believe, through balanced policy, we can achieve this goal. What
I don't believe, is that we can achieve this goal by promulgating
national carbon emission regulation, regulation which I believe will
only further cripple our national economy without any positive impact
on global temperature reduction.
Before I close, I wanted to address one issue I have with the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy at the DOE. Specifically, I
was troubled that the Funding Opportunity Announcement for this program
limits participation eligibility to U.S. operations of companies'
headquartered abroad. Nationwide, these companies employ over 5 million
Americans including 46,500 Kansans. There are no other programs at DOE
that define these US companies as ``foreign entities'' and there is
nothing in either applicable law or regulation that would require these
restrictions. Many of these companies are longtime partners with the
DOE and have expertise in this area that can help advance U.S. energy
goals. As such, allowing their participation in ARPA-E, very much like
DOE successfully does in other programs, could positively impact future
U.S. employment while contributing to the success of the program. I
know that officials at the Department have had discussions with folks
on this issue and I appreciate the Secretary's acknowledgement of those
concerns and a commitment to consider the issue and look to modify
future requirements. I would ask that the exchange of letters regarding
this issue, and my full statement, be entered into the record. In
addition, I would like your assurance, Mr. Majumar, that the policy
will be carefully reviewed, and hopefully changed, in light of these
considerations.
Thank you again for testifying today, and I look forward to working
with both of you in the future.
______
Attachments.--Exchange of Letters From Senator Brownback
Organization for International Investment,
May 26, 2009.
Hon. Steven Chu,
Secretary of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Chu: On behalf of the Organization for International
Investment (OFII) and the more than 5 million American workers employed
here by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-based multinationals, I write to
express concern about participation restrictions placed on these
companies in a recent ARPA-E Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).\1\
This discriminatory treatment of certain U.S. companies is not mandated
by applicable law or regulation. Restricting the ability of these
companies and their American workers to fully participate in the
program and compete for program funds undermines the effectiveness of
the program, calls into question the U.S. commitment to a
nondiscriminatory environment for foreign investment, and invites
similar protectionist retribution from other countries. We urge you to
reconsider these restrictions and issue an amendment to the FOA that
removes these restrictions and allows all U.S.-domiciled companies,
regardless of ultimate ownership, to compete on a level playing field
for available ARPAE funds. Representatives of our member companies
would be pleased to meet with you and your staff to provide further
information on how their participation has benefited similar programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ APRA-E Funding Opportunity Announcement # DE-FOA-0000065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of further background, OFII is a business association
representing the U.S. operations of many of the world's largest
international companies. These operations directly employ more than 5
million Americans here in the United States and support an annual U.S.
payroll of over $364 billion. As evidenced by the attached membership
list, many OFII members are household name companies with historic and
substantial U.S. operations. Many are significant partners of your
Department, and will be adversely affected by these new provisions.
The restrictions included in the ARPA-E FOA would limit the ability
of numerous U.S.-incorporated companies to participate fully in this
important program. Two restrictions are particularly troublesome.
First, the FOA prohibits a foreign entity\2\ from serving as the lead
of a team competing for ARPA-E funds. Second, the FOA requires that
``no more than 25% of the ARPA-E funds may be expended by the
combination of all foreign entities on the project . . . regardless of
whether the work is performed in the United States or a foreign
location.'' These restrictions are both surprising and onerous because,
to the extent it is important that ARPA-E funded activities take place
within the United States, the existing FOA requirement that 90% of the
work be performed on U.S. soil would accomplish that goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FOA definition of a ``foreign entity'' is overly broad and
includes any entity that is ``directly or indirectly owned or
controlled by a foreign company or government.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As currently drafted, the restrictions on the participation of
``foreign entities'' will severely limit the ability of such
significant DOE partners as Saint-Gobain, BASF, Philips Electronics,
and Bosch from participating in the program. These companies employ
thousands of American workers who work in research, production and
office facilities throughout the Untied States. As such, the
restrictions discriminate in favor of some U.S. companies and workers
while disadvantaging other U.S. companies and workers. OFII Member
Companies can make important contributions to the ARPA-E program and
their participation would be of significant benefit to the Department
and to the United States. Respectfully, restrictions that limit in any
material way their ability to participate undermine the effectiveness
of the program, make no economic sense, and will deprive U.S. taxpayers
of the full value of their investment.
We would further note that these restrictions are not legally
required. We understand that the restrictions were adopted by
Departmental program officials believing they were ``in the spirit'' of
the Buy America provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act. We are very concerned that the program officials did not
appreciate the significantly adverse and public impact of these
restrictions on U.S. companies, on the effectiveness of the ARPA-E
program, and on U.S. trade policy more generally.
Setting aside any questions the restrictions raise under U.S.
international agreements, they are also inconsistent with the
longstanding and explicit U.S. policy to encourage foreign investment
in the United States and accord nondiscriminatory treatment. The FOA
invites discrimination against U.S. companies abroad, which is exactly
what President Obama and the other G20 Leaders pledged to avoid through
their commitment to ``promote global trade and investment and reject
protectionism.''
Finally, the restrictions currently set forth in the FOA are a
disturbing example of what can happen when government crafts overtly
protectionist policies. The atmosphere created by the ``Buy America''
provisions has encouraged officials to discriminate believing such
discrimination is consistent with what appears to be prevailing policy.
This is the very concern that we, along with dozens of companies and
other trade associations, raised in our February 4th letter to the
President opposing the Buy America provisions. In that letter, we
warned that such a provision would ``send the wrong message at the
worst possible time.'' Our fear was that the ``wrong'' message would be
received by other countries. It is now clear that the wrong message was
heard by U.S. officials as well.
We strongly urge you to remove these unprecedented and unwarranted
restrictions from the ARPA-E funding opportunity announcement, and to
ensure that no similar restrictions are included in future FOAs for the
ARPA-E program or other DOE programs.
Sincerely,
Nancy Mclernon,
President & CEO.
______
Department of Energy,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2009.
Ms. Nancy Mclernon,
President and CEO, Organization for International Investment, 1225
Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Mclernon: Thank you for your May 26, 2009, letter
concerning foreign participation and funding under the first Funding
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) issued by the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).
You correctly note that the FOA permits participation by foreign
entities and allows substantial funding of activities by foreign
entities. However, you question the requirement that lead organizations
be U.S. entities as well as the limitation on the percentage of ARPA-E
funds that may be received by foreign entities participating in a
selected project.
The first ARPA-E FOA provisions sought to strike a thoughtful
balance on the issue of foreign participation, permitting a substantial
role for foreign entities with the resources and capabilities to
participate in the important transformational goals of ARPA-E, while
meeting the stipulations of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The second ARPA-E FOA will be modified based on other factors, and we
will coordinate this with the Department of Commerce and the Office of
the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
I believe that transformational results in energy research can be
achieved when technology leaders and researchers from all over the
world commit themselves to innovation. By supporting a global interest
in collaborative energy research and innovations in energy technologies
I hope to address better the energy, economic, and climate needs shared
by all countries.
Again, thank you for your interest in this important program. If
you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact me or Shane Kosinski, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy,
at (202) 287-1057.
Sincerely,
Steven Chu,
Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the hearing this morning and I want to thank our nominees for
their willingness to serve.
You have noted the distinguished history within the USGS.
Ms. McNutt will have 130 years of USGS history to deal with,
while Mr. Majumdar has the luxury and also the challenge of
being nominated to head an agency with almost no history to
defend. So I do not know which is better here.
Certainly on its face, the mission of the USGS is quite
straightforward, to provide reliable scientific information
about our Nation's resources. Good and complete information
about the extent and the location of our Nation's natural
resources is clearly essential and I believe the foundation of
wise decisions regarding energy and land use policy. USGS also
serves as a place where we help to educate Americans as to what
our resources are and what they are not.
I look forward to your responses to questions, Ms. McNutt.
I do hope that you commit to providing the information that
will allow us to do just that: understand where our resources
are and where they may not be.
I would also like to recognize the importance of another
part of the USGS mission. Alaska, as you know, is part of this
Pacific Rim of Fire, which is very geologically active. It is
exposed on nearly a daily basis to threats from volcanoes and
earthquakes and tsunamis. We have one volcano down on the chain
that is picking up in activity. We had our major airport in the
State, as well as other airports, shut down in March and April.
It kept my kids from returning home from spring break, while
they were skiing out there. It really ruined their day, I am
sure.
But I think we recognize that this geologic activity is not
something that is remote and just happens where there is no
impact to commerce and to human activity. It is incredibly
important that within USGS they help to work with us to predict
and minimize the risk to people in the State of Alaska. I look
forward to discussing these issues with you and so many others.
As far as the responsibilities within the Advanced Research
Projects Agency, I think Senator Bond made the comment that
food does not come from the back of a grocery store, and as
such, we know that water does not originate from the faucet and
copper wire does not originate from some endless spool in the
hardware store. Gasoline does not originate from the filling
station. But I think there are some who believe that there is
this immaculate conception for energy. It just happens, that
there is some magical technology that is going to appear
overnight and just transform our Nation's energy use.
That in one sense, Mr. Majumdar, is your job. I hope that
you are successful in this, but hope is not much to build a
prosperous economy on. While we wait for that today, we have to
focus clearly on how we best assess, how we manage and how we
produce the resources that will stabilize and advance our
economy today and for some time into the future. I will look
forward to your comments as well.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am ready to go.
The Chairman. All right.
Let me ask the two nominees to please come forward to the
witness table. Representative Farr, please have a chair. Let us
hear first from Representative Farr, who is here to introduce
Dr. McNutt and who represents an area in California that she
hails from, as I understand it. We are very glad to have you
before the committee. Go ahead, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am, indeed,
honored to be before your committee and Ranking Member
Murkowski and my friend, Senator Udall, and Senator Risch. I
really appreciate the opportunity. I am really honored to be
able to introduce to you Dr. McNutt, a scientist of
exceptionally high caliber, and commend her to you as President
Obama's nominee to head the USGS.
Of course, it is bittersweet for me because Dr. McNutt is
leaving my district where she has had an important and a
lasting impact as a scientist, as a leader, as a member of our
community.
Dr. McNutt first arrived in Monterey more than a decade ago
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to take charge
of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, better known
locally as MBARI. This was an institute founded by the late
David Packard.
Her arrival coincided with the Year of the Ocean, and Dr.
McNutt immediately joined in and became a leader in the
planning of this high-profile event, in which I was heavily
involved. That was the event in which President Clinton and the
First Lady visited and had a White House conference on the
oceans in Monterey.
Out of this grew a multi-institutional cooperative alliance
that she chaired for many years called the Monterey Bay
Crescent Ocean Research Consortium. The consortium continues to
this day and is outstanding for its breadth and density of its
oceanographic and scientific prowess, unrivaled anywhere in the
world.
Taken together, these activities are illustrative not just
of Dr. McNutt's initiative and leadership, but also of her
pioneering vision.
I point this out because it is such a clear example of Dr.
McNutt's farsighted thinking and of how her collaborative style
and commitment to working with other institutions have built
such enduring programs and productive relationships.
I would like to also mention that Dr. McNutt is one of the
few women to have achieved membership in all three honorary
academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical
Society.
Thank you for allowing me the tremendous honor to introduce
you to Dr. McNutt, and with her today is her daughter Meredith
and daughter Dana.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Farr, U.S. Representative From
California
Thank you Chairman Bingaman and members of the Committee for
granting me the opportunity to speak to you here today: it is a great
privilege. It is also a great privilege and a sincere pleasure to
introduce Dr. Marcia McNutt, a scientist of exceptionally high caliber,
and to commend her to you as President Obama's nominee to head the
United States Geological Survey. Of course this is a bittersweet moment
for me because it means that Dr. McNutt will be leaving my district,
where she has had an important and a lasting impact as a scientist, as
a leader and as a member of our community.
Dr. McNutt first arrived in Monterey more than a decade ago from
the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology to take charge of
the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, better known as MBARI. Of
course all of the ocean leaders in the Central Coast were keenly
interested in what direction she might take this, then young,
institution; it had so much promise but had, to date, been somewhat
insular from the other oceanographic institutions in the area. Her
arrival coincided with the Year of the Ocean. Dr. McNutt immediate
joined in and became a leader in the planning for this high-profile
event, in which I was also heavily involved.
Out of this grew an inter-institutional cooperative alliance that
she chaired for many years, called the Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean
Research Consortium, or MBCORC. The existence of MBCORC provided the
nucleus for one of the first successful regional ocean observing
systems, CeNCOOS, which is hosted at MBARI. Taken together, these
activities are illustrative not just of Dr. McNutt's initiative and
leadership, but also of her pioneering vision. The Monterey Bay
Crescent Ocean Research Consortium continues to this day and is
astounding for the breadth and density of its oceanographic and
scientific prowess, unrivaled anywhere else in the world.
I point this out because it is such a clear example of Dr. McNutt's
far sighted thinking and of how her collaborative style and commitment
to working with other institutions have built such enduring programs
and productive relationships. I would also like to mention that Dr.
McNutt is one of the very few women to have earned what is the academic
equivalent of the ``triple crown:'' membership in all three honorary
academies: The National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society.
Thank you again for allowing me the tremendous honor to introduce
to you, Dr. Marcia McNutt.
The Chairman. Thank you for being here to make the
introduction. We appreciate it very much. We appreciate you
taking time out of your busy schedule.
Let me just go through the protocol that we do with all
nominees.
We would excuse you, Representative Farr. If you need to
get back to the House, we certainly understand that.
The rules of our committee that apply to all nominees
require they be sworn in connection with their testimony. So
let me just ask the two nominees if they would please stand and
raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. McNutt. I do.
Mr. Majumdar. I do.
The Chairman. You may be seated.
Before you begin your statements, let me ask three
questions that we address to each nominee that comes before
this committee.
First, will you be available to appear before this
committee and other congressional committees to represent
departmental positions and to respond to issues of concern to
the Congress?
Dr. McNutt?
Ms. McNutt. I will.
The Chairman. Dr. Majumdar?
Mr. Majumdar. I will.
The Chairman. The second question. Are you aware of any
personal holdings, investments, or interests that could
constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance of
such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the office
to which you have been nominated by the President?
Dr. McNutt?
Ms. McNutt. My investments, personal holdings, and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There
are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
The Chairman. Dr. Majumdar?
Mr. Majumdar. My investments, personal holdings, and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate actions to avoid any conflicts of interest. There
are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my
knowledge.
The Chairman. Thank you both.
Our third and final question is, are you involved or do you
have any assets that are held in a blind trust?
Dr. McNutt?
Ms. McNutt. No.
Mr. Majumdar. No.
The Chairman. OK, thank you both very much.
At this point, if either of you have a desire to introduce
family members, we welcome that. Dr. McNutt, I know your
daughters are here. If you would like to introduce them or
anyone else, go ahead.
Ms. McNutt. Yes, Senator. I would like to introduce two of
my daughters who took the red-eye to be with us this morning.
First is my daughter Meredith who is a graduate student at
Berkeley. She is studying green real estate development at the
Haas School of Business. Next to her is my daughter Dana who
works in Silicon Valley for a company in IT security, and she
is also obtaining a graduate degree at the Engineering School
at Santa Clara University.
Dana's identical twin sister Ashley graduated from Stanford
in philosophy and political science, but she is Miss Rodeo
California, and her royal duties have kept her in California
this week.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We can certainly understand that. That is a
higher calling than anything we are doing around here.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Dr. Majumdar, why do you not go ahead, if you
would like to introduce family members.
Mr. Majumdar. Sure. Let me introduce my wife of 19 years,
Dr. Aruna Joshi, and our two daughters Shalini and Anjali.
Shalini is taking her SAT exams this Saturday, so I wish her
the best of luck. My 76-year-old mother sends her regrets to
you that she could not be here today.
The Chairman. We are sorry she could not be, but we welcome
those who are here, the families of both nominees.
At this point, let me just have each of you give any
opening statement that you would like to give and then we will
have a few questions.
Dr. McNutt, why don't you go ahead first?
STATEMENT OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PH.D., TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. McNutt. Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, Senator
Udall, I am honored to come before you as the President's
nominee for Director of the U.S. Geological Survey. You have my
prepared statement. Time is short. Therefore, I will depart
from those remarks and just speak from the heart.
I would argue that the USGS is the Nation's premier science
agency because it provides unbiased data and assessments on
resources critical to the very fabric of our daily lives, such
as water and energy. The USGS helps keep us safe from natural
hazards and provides essential scientific information about the
quality of our environment and how it is changing.
I know that you take very seriously the task of confirming
just the right person to direct this organization, and I need
to convince you that I am that person.
First, I am a good scientist certified by the National
Academy. Science organizations need science leadership. Good
scientists know that it is not just about finding the right
answers. It is about knowing what questions to ask in the first
place.
Second, I am a leader. I was president of the American
Geophysical Union, the largest international body of geoscience
professionals in the world, including hydrologists, atmospheric
scientists, oceanographers, geologists, and geobiologists.
Third, I am a seasoned administrator, having run a research
institution for 12 years now. I understand the importance of
strategic planning, audit, HR policies and procedures, regular
maintenance from the perspective of someone who has been
responsible for all of those functions.
Fourth, I am familiar with the culture of the USGS having
been a former employee. A common cause of failure of leaders
who are brought in from the outside to head organizations is
inability to assimilate the culture of the new organization. I
will be right at home at the USGS.
Fifth, I am a strong believer in team building. My current
institution has thrived on destroying conventional boundaries
between disciplines and on building uncommon partnerships. The
USGS and its many partners succeed through team work.
Finally, in closing, public service is a tradition in my
family. My father was a freshman at Harvard when the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor. He lied about his age and waived a heart
murmur to enlist in the infantry. I do not think that my father
considered the contributions he could make to his country were
any more important at that time than the contributions I hope I
can make. I believe that the Nation's need for timely
information on natural hazards, environmental and climate
change, and water, energy, biological, and other natural
hazards has never been greater.
After my father landed at the beaches of Normandy and
fought his way to Berlin, he was the youngest 2nd lieutenant in
the U.S. Army, younger than my daughters today. He earned the
Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and two Purple Hearts. I could
only dream that my contributions to my country would approach
those of my father.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the
challenge, should you honor me with this confirmation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McNutt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marcia K. McNutt, Ph.D., to be Director of the
United States Geological Society, Department of the Interior
Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, distinguished members of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am honored to come before you
as President Obama's nominee for Director of the US Geological Survey.
I am excited about this opportunity to join Secretary Salazar's team at
the Department of the Interior, especially now, when the nation's need
for timely information on natural hazards, environmental and climate
change, and water, energy, biological, and other natural resources has
never been greater.
My inspiration for dedicating my life to the Earth sciences comes
from having lived in some of the most beautiful landscapes that America
has to offer: the 10,000 lakes of Minnesota, the Rocky Mountains of
Colorado, the sandy beaches of La Jolla and Cape Cod, and now John
Steinbeck's Pastures of Heaven above Monterey Bay. I always knew I
wanted to be a scientist, but even when I was young I could never
picture myself in a lab coat with a test tube.
I majored in Physics at Colorado College, but my favorite college
course was Introduction to Geology, taught by Professor John Lewis.
Colorado College uses the block plan in which students only take one
course at a time for a month. Introduction to Geology is two blocks
long. So my first two months at college were spent with Doc Lewis and
about 19 other students scrambling around the Front Range with our back
packs and sleeping bags trying to piece together the geologic history
of the Southern Rockies from first principles. We never cracked a book
the entire time. I was drawn to the grandeur of the Earth sciences and
awed by the time and space scales upon which Earth processes played
out. No lab coat. No test tube. Science outside!
Once I arrived at graduate school at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, I switched fields from Physical Oceanography to Marine
Geophysics because plate tectonics was revolutionizing the geosciences.
With the vast majority of plate boundaries under the ocean, marine
geophysicists would be the ones to put the pieces of the theory
together. Entering the field at that time was like becoming a biologist
right after Darwin wrote Origin of the Species or becoming a physicist
right after Einstein wrote the Special Theory of Relativity. Old
papers, textbooks, and theories were suddenly rendered irrelevant, such
that there was no large body of prior knowledge to be absorbed.
Observations had to be reinterpreted within the context of the new
framework. Major marine expeditions were led, and often staffed
entirely, by my fellow graduate students and myself, because many of
the more senior practitioners in the field were too slow to embrace the
new paradigm. It was a heady time filled with the excitement of
scientific discovery. Science at sea!
I credit the US Geological Survey for giving me my first ``real''
job after receiving my PhD. I spent three wonderful years in the Office
of Earthquake Studies in Menlo Park, California, calibrating the
strength of plates on time scales relevant to the earthquake generation
process. Working on the earthquake problem, in California, gave me my
first taste of what it was like to be involved in research of interest
to the general public, not just my fellow scientists. This was science
people use! I also benefitted from this time at the GS in that I can
still appreciate the culture of the organization from the viewpoint of
someone who has spent time ``down in the trenches,'' and yet the
intervening years away allow me to bring a fresh perspective to the
organization.
The majority of my career has been spent at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, where I served on the faculty in the
Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences for 15 years,
and was eventually awarded an endowed chair. I enjoyed being surrounded
every day by some of the brightest young minds in the country, engaging
them in forefront research problems, and watching them grow
intellectually each day. My favorite part about MIT was serving as a
freshman advisor and hearing the personal stories of the students each
September. Many represented the first generation in their families to
attend college. Whether they had come from the barrios of San Antonio
or the plains of North Dakota, the one thing they shared was the fact
that they had earned their place in the MIT freshman class by their own
effort. And back home, an entire community was cheering them on.
My research took me and my students all over the planet: to the
islands of French Polynesia, the Tibet Plateau, Iceland, Siberia, and
Antarctica. At MIT I learned how to do what really counts, how to find,
measure, and nurture excellence, and to become ridiculously efficient
at multi-tasking. Equally importantly, I developed a complete
intolerance for sloppy science and anything but the highest ethical
standards.
My most recent posting for the last 12 years has been as the
President and CEO of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
better known as MBARI. MBARI is an oceanographic research institution
founded by David Packard and privately funded by the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation. With its emphasis on peer relationships between
scientists and engineers and encouragement of high-risk research and
technology development, MBARI is best described as a ``NASA for the
oceans,'' albeit at a smaller budget scale. This latest position has
given me ample experience in leadership, management, and
administration, as well as considerable opportunity to familiarize
myself with issues and opportunities in environmental chemistry and
biology.
In looking back at my time at MBARI, I believe I have left a mark
on several aspects of institute operations. First, teamwork. Across
science, engineering, marine operations, outreach programs, and
administrative areas, everyone functions as a well-oiled team. To a
person, everyone understands that the reason we exist is to support the
research mission and to make it progress smoothly and flawlessly.
Second, our mission. I helped redirect MBARI from a broadly constituted
portfolio in basic research to a more targeted set of socially relevant
topics such as ocean acidification, eutrophication, methane hydrates,
and harmful algal blooms, nearly a decade before they became common
buzzwords. Finally, the staff. I am proud of the people I have hired,
their work ethic, and their commitment to Packard's founding vision of
how a different kind of institution can truly make a difference.
You may all be wondering why I would consider leaving such a
scientific paradise and relocating from my beloved Pastures of Heaven
at this time. This nation is facing important decisions concerning
future uses of its precious resources: water, energy, and environment.
We are increasingly at economic risk from natural hazards. The
challenges associated with climate change must be better understood.
Submarine areas under US control out to the 200 mile limit are equal to
the subaerial land area of this great nation, and yet the seabed
resources have yet to be explored and inventoried. In deciding how best
to move forward, our leaders, including members of Congress, the
President, and the Secretary of the Interior, need sound, unbiased,
scientific advice. Science is not the only factor in decision making,
but it needs to be one of the factors. The USGS has long-term records
and scientific expertise that can be used for making good choices based
on solid data, and can look into the geologic record to determine
whether recent conditions are likely to be representative of the
future. Now, more than ever before, the nation needs the USGS, and I
would be proud, if confirmed, to lead this effort.
So, in summary, these are the skills and qualities I would hope to
bring to the leadership of the US Geological Survey, if confirmed:
--The capacity to be inspired by the natural world
--A love for science outside
--An appreciation for the culture of the US Geological Survey
--A history of association with some of the finest research
institutions in the nation
--The ability to recognize and nurture excellence
--High ethical standards
--An aptitude for leadership
--Experience in team building
--A track record for asking the right scientific questions
Thank you for the opportunity to come before you, and I look
forward to this challenge, should you confirm me for this position.
The Chairman. Thank you for your statement.
Dr. Majumdar, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF ARUN MAJUMDAR, PH.D., TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Majumdar. Thank you. Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member
Murkowski, and distinguished members of this committee, it is
my distinct honor and privilege to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be the first Director of the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E.
I wish to thank President Obama for nominating me to join
his administration and Secretary Chu first for inspiring me and
many others at Berkeley and now for showing his confidence in
me.
Almost a quarter century ago, I came to this country from
the land of Mahatma Gandhi as a 22-year-old graduate student,
hoping to receive a doctorate from the best higher education
and research system in the world. This was a dream that my
father had for me. He came to this country in 1957 to receive
an education in telecommunication and radar and returned to
India 2 years later with many friendships and a deep admiration
for the people of this country. In his wildest of dreams,
however, I am not sure he could have predicted that I would
appear before you today.
In the course of my journey, I have discovered not only the
scientific and technological prowess of this great Nation, but
also a country that opened its arms, welcomed me with warmth,
and adopted me as one of her own. I am proud to be a
naturalized citizen of the United States of America. I am
deeply appreciative of the opportunity and the freedom that the
country has offered me and will always be honored to serve in
any capacity the country asks of me.
After receiving my Ph.D., in mechanical engineering from
the University of California at Berkeley, I spent my career in
academia, spanning Arizona State University, University of
California at Santa Barbara, and finally at Berkeley. I have
been very fortunate to work with some of the smartest minds in
science and engineering, including many Ph.D.s, post-doctoral
fellows, fellow faculty, and industrial scientists and hundreds
of undergraduate students. I have been an advisor for both
science and engineering at the Department of Energy, the
National Science Foundation, for PCAST, and for various startup
companies and venture capital firms in the Bay Area, which is
the world's most vibrant ecosystem for technological and
business innovation.
The focus of my work has always been to solve industrial or
societal problems and to dig deep into science when faced with
difficult technical challenges. I have risked delving into new
fields of research where I had no background, and I have
thrived on quickly learning the landscape and opening new paths
where previously none existed. For these contributions, I was
elected as one of the youngest members to the National Academy
of Engineering, which is the Nation's highest honor in
engineering. I have served as the director of several
institutes in both academia and professional organizations and
have recently led the energy efficiency innovation efforts at
Berkeley Labs. In February of this year, I testified before
this committee on how to reduce energy consumption in
buildings. If confirmed, I will bring this breadth and depth of
knowledge in science, engineering, and management of
technological innovations to lead ARPA-E from its genesis.
One of the models for ARPA-E is DARPA, which was created in
1958 in response to the launch of Sputnik. This committee and
others were instrumental in authorizing ARPA-E and pointing it
to address three Sputniks of our generation: energy
independence and security, reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, and American competitiveness in the global energy
and environment market.
The goal of ARPA-E is to identify and anticipate
technological barriers and gaps that impede progress toward
these objectives and to rapidly innovate to overcome or
circumvent them. ARPA-E will complement existing R&D programs
by drawing upon the scientific discoveries and combining them
with new engineering approaches to create innovative solutions
for the market. Speed, calculated risks, internal competition,
and agility will be the keys to the technological innovations
that mark our success. Our Nation's history is replete with
examples of pioneers and entrepreneurs who took risks, often
failed initially, quickly learned from their failures, competed
against each other, and innovated in both technology and
business to create the largest industrial base the world has
ever seen. If confirmed, I will lead ARPA-E to tap into this
truly American ethos and identify and support the pioneers of
the future.
I believe that the Nation that creates an economy based on
reduced energy consumption, clean energy supply, and a smart
energy infrastructure will lead the global economy of the 21st
century. With the best R&D infrastructure in the world and a
thriving innovation ecosystem in business and entrepreneurship,
we have all the ingredients for success and we have made a
great start.
ARPA-E can play a critical role in accelerating progress
toward these goals. The program has taken its first steps this
year, and if confirmed, I pledge to use all my knowledge,
expertise, and experience to help grow ARPA-E into a robust
engine of American innovation in energy and environment.
It is a privilege and an honor to testify before you today,
and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Majumdar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arun Majumdar, Ph.D., to be Director of the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Department of Energy
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished
members of this committee, it is my distinct honor and privilege to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to be the first
Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy or ARPA-E.
I wish to thank President Obama for nominating me to join his
administration, and Secretary Chu, first for inspiring me and many
others at Berkeley, and now for showing his confidence in me.
Please allow me to introduce my wife of 19 years, Dr. Aruna Joshi,
and our two daughters, Shalini and Anjali. My 76-year old mother sends
her regrets to you that she could not be here today.
Almost a quarter century ago, I came to this country from the land
of Mahatma Gandhi as a 22-year old graduate student, hoping to receive
a doctorate from the best higher education and research system in the
world. This was a dream that my father had for me. He came to this
country in 1957 to receive an education in telecommunication and radar,
and returned to India two years later with many friendships and a deep
admiration for the people of this country. In the wildest of dreams,
however, I am not sure he could have predicted that I would appear
before you today.
In the course of my journey, I have discovered not only the
scientific and technological prowess of this great nation, but also a
country that opened its arms, welcomed me warmly, and adopted me as one
of her own. I am proud to be a naturalized citizen of the United States
of America. I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity and the freedom
that the country has offered me, and will always be honored to serve in
any capacity the country asks of me.
After receiving my PhD in Mechanical Engineering at the University
of California, Berkeley, I spent my career in academia, spanning
Arizona State University, University of California, Santa Barbara and
finally at Berkeley. I have been very fortunate to work with some of
the smartest minds in science and engineering, including many PhDs,
post-doctoral fellows, other faculty and industrial scientists, and
hundreds of undergraduate students. I have been advisor for both
science and engineering at the Department of Energy, the National
Science Foundation, for PCAST and for various startup companies and
venture capital firms in the Bay Area, which is the world's most
vibrant ecosystem for technological and business innovation.
The focus of my work has always been to solve industrial or
societal problems, and to dig deep into science when faced with
difficult technical challenges. I have risked delving into new fields
of research where I had no background, and have thrived on quickly
learning the landscape and opening new paths where previously none
existed. For these contributions, I was elected as one of the youngest
members to the National Academy of Engineering, which is the nation's
highest honor in engineering. I have served as the director of several
institutes both in academia and in professional organizations, and have
more recently led the energy efficiency innovation efforts at Berkeley
Labs. In February of this year, I testified before this committee on
how to reduce energy consumption in buildings. If confirmed, I will
bring this breadth and depth of knowledge in science, engineering, and
management of technological innovation to lead ARPA-E from its genesis.
One of the models for ARPA-E is DARPA, which was created in 1958 in
response to the launch of Sputnik. This committee and others were
instrumental in authorizing ARPA-E, and pointing it to address three
``Sputniks'' of our generation: (i) energy independence and security;
(ii) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (iii) American
competitiveness in the global energy and environment market.
The goal of ARPA-E is to identify and anticipate technological
barriers and gaps that impede progress towards these objectives and to
rapidly innovate to overcome or circumvent them. ARPA-E will complement
existing R & D programs by drawing upon the scientific discoveries and
combining them with new engineering approaches to create innovative
solutions for the market. Speed, calculated risks, internal
competition, and agility will be the keys to the technological
innovations that will mark our success. Our nation's history is replete
with examples of pioneers and entrepreneurs who took risks, often
failed initially, quickly learned from those failures, competed against
each other, and innovated in both technology and business to create the
largest industrial base the world has ever seen. If confirmed, I will
lead ARPA-E to tap into this truly American ethos and identify and
support the pioneers of the future.
I believe that the nation that creates an economy based on reduced
energy consumption, clean energy supply, and a smart energy
infrastructure will lead the global economy of the 21st century. With
the best R&D infrastructure in the world and a thriving innovation
ecosystem in business and entrepreneurship, we have all the ingredients
for success and we have made a great start.
ARPA-E can play a critical role in accelerating progress towards
these goals. The program has taken its first steps this year, and if
confirmed, I pledge to use all my knowledge, expertise, and experience
to help grow ARPA-E into a robust engine of American innovation in
energy and environment.
It is a privilege and an honor to testify before you today, and I
look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you both very much for your very good
statements.
Let me ask a couple of questions and then defer to Senator
Murkowski for her questions and then others.
Dr. McNutt, one of the bills that we were able to pass here
recently is the Secure Water Act. This is legislation that
requires the USGS to compile data and develop strategies to
address impacts associated with climate change.
I do not know if you are in a position at this point, but
if you are, I would be anxious to hear what plans USGS has to
implement the Secure Water Act, how those plans fit within the
structure established by Secretary Salazar's recent order
addressing the impacts of climate change on America's land,
water, and natural and cultural resources. Do you have enough
information to give us some insights on that at this point?
Ms. McNutt. Thank you for that question, Senator.
I do know that, of course, the Secretary is extremely
interested in moving forward in understanding impacts of
climate and one of the major impacts is, of course, on water
supplies. The Secure Water Act, in its emphasis on research on
water, will fit right in with that.
The fact that the Secure Water Act is based on the
recommendations of a National Academy report is, of course,
greatly in its favor because it is good science. It fits right
in with the mission of the USGS, and as we all know, the USGS,
in its cooperative program with the States, has worked very
hard to try to keep its stream gauge network funded to provide
vital information and data on the water resources in the United
States. I very much would look forward, if confirmed, to
working with you and this committee to put the stream gauge
network on a solid financial footing.
The Chairman. Thank you for that.
Let me just make one other comment. In previous years here,
under the previous administration, we had real problems
maintaining funding for USGS' work related to water. There were
proposed cuts in the water resources programs at USGS. Coming
from an arid State and, of course, with the concerns that
climate change could make it even more arid, which many of the
scientists have now concluded, I am anxious that we adequately
fund the Department's budget to do the work required in these
important programs. The ones I have in mind are the National
Stream Flow Information Program, the National Groundwater
Resources Monitoring Program, and the Cooperative Water
Program.
So I hope that you will be able to give those real
priority. If you will, once confirmed, be fighting for adequate
funding for them within the administration, I will be doing
what I can to see that Congress supports that as well.
Ms. McNutt. I think we are on the same wavelength there,
Senator.
The Chairman. Dr. Majumdar, let me just mention to you--I
think in your statements, you have got a good phrase there,
``thriving innovation ecosystem,'' as something that we need to
promote and generate in our economy and our country and that
the research and development infrastructure is an essential
part of that.
A lot of what you are going to be trying to do at ARPA-E,
at least the way I think about it--and maybe you could comment
as to where I am wrong on this, if I am. At our national
laboratories, Department of Energy laboratories, as you have
experienced there at Berkeley, the labs have a portion of money
which is generally referred to as LDRD that the lab director
can direct to those areas that have great potential but which
do not necessarily have a sponsor in the sense of an agency
that has come to them saying please do this or please do that.
It seems to me that your job nationally is to do the same type
of thing, identify those areas that have that same kind of
great potential long-term and hopefully we will be able to
maintain funding so that your new agency will be able to
nurture those and develop those.
Am I thinking of it properly by making that analogy to the
LDRD funding at our national labs?
Mr. Majumdar. Thank you, Senator. I think the analogy is
very appropriate. Having been in the national lab in Berkeley,
I have been part of the LDRD system, and I think those are some
of the ideas that we think are the catalysts of the future to
grow something bigger and which often will not be looked at
that favorably with the funding agencies because it is just too
early. So in that respect, it is a great analogy.
I think in the first round of proposals that ARPA-E had
that I was not involved in, they received a tremendous interest
from the scientific and engineering community, overwhelming in
fact, which just goes to show how much sort of pent-up interest
there is in looking at innovations in the energy and
environment area.
The Chairman. Very good.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. McNutt, I appreciate the conversation that you had with
the chairman about the water resources and the studies there. I
would just add another one to put on your radar screen.
Back in 2007, we passed the Alaska Water Resources Act that
required USGS to do a study of the aquifers that are in the
urban areas of the State, Anchorage, south central, and down in
Homer, as we look to potential water shortages within the
State.
So the commitment that I believe I heard from you was that
you would be working to get these. If not the studies, you
mentioned the stream gauge network, which we recognize have not
been given the greatest priority from a funding perspective.
But it sounds like you have got a commitment here to work in
this area, and I would just appreciate you recognizing the
Alaska piece up there as well. Oftentimes, I think it is
believed that because we are surrounded by water and we have so
many rivers and natural water sources, that we are OK up there.
But we still would ask for the assistance that we gained in
2007 with that study.
I wanted to ask you about the data that has been requested.
As we look to the situation on our public lands and making
decisions as to whether we develop our natural resources there,
it is important that we fully understand what it is that we
have. Earlier this year, I had sent a letter to Secretary
Salazar requesting that the Department provide our office with
maps and data that outlined the minerals, the oil and gas that
is available, some of our renewable energy resources within
some of these newly proposed wilderness areas and other land
set-asides. Much of that data that they will need within
Interior will be coming from USGS data bases.
So the question I ask of you at this point in time is
whether you will commit to providing that data to the committee
as we have requested, and as that is collected, if within USGS
you can provide us with a list of the energy and the mineral
resources that are already set aside within these wilderness
areas. So a collection of the data, and then providing that to
us as well, is required.
Ms. McNutt. Senator, thank you for bringing up this issue.
During my Hill visits in preparation for this hearing, I heard
about this issue actually from several Senators already, and
clearly this is a big issue when it comes to setting aside
wilderness areas to know ahead of time what exactly is being
set aside.
I think for many of these areas, there probably is already
information that is known, and I simply do not know yet what
kind of workload it would be. I would like to work with the
Senators here on this committee and with the staff at the USGS
to get an estimate of what it would take to actually meet your
needs for this and come back to you with some kind of estimate
of what we could deliver for you that would meet your needs and
not impact other critical areas of the Survey's mission at the
same time.
Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate your review of that.
As I think you probably learned in your visits, it is an issue
that I think has generated a great deal of interest amongst
members. It is important that we understand where our resources
are and as we are talking about public land set-asides, what we
are doing. The policy decisions are done using the science.
Dr. Majumdar, let me ask you. Within ARPA-E, you are
focusing on some pretty exciting things, and a lot of dreaming,
a lot of visioning. Some would say it is impossible. But you
are taking on some high-risk, high-pay-off technologies, and we
have to believe that for every success that you have, you are
going to have multiple failures. Given that we live in a
technological age where, again, we expect an instantaneous
result--we expect if we flip that switch, all of a sudden, we
are going to be able to go from power that is generated by coal
to power created by wind just like that--what is the real
timeline, when we live in this world of instantaneous response?
What is reasonable in terms of a timeline for us here in
Congress to gauge the effectiveness of this program within
ARPA-E?
Mr. Majumdar. Thank you, Senator. I think that is a very
good question.
I feel a timeline depends really on the technology. In some
cases, you are right. I think there will be--when anyone takes
high risks and looks for high pay-offs, there will be a few
things that may not go exactly the way we planned. But I think
the real gain from that is to learn from the failures and sort
of get around them in the future.
I appreciate the question. I think the time depends on what
we want to do. In some cases, I think the goal of ARPA-E--and
if confirmed, this is where I would go--is to look at the
industry and see where are the gaps, where are the
technological barriers. You know, it is supposed to be a
projects agency. So if there is a barrier, you can create a
project and let five teams compete with each other and solve
the problem, and then move on to other things.
In that case, it could be--some of them could be shorter,
but there are some issues which are much more longer-term. How
do you take sunlight and create a fuel out of that? There are
some basic science issues that are still being discovered right
now. You know, if they get discovered, the question is then how
to accelerate that into a commercial setting. Those can take
longer.
So it really depends on the kind of problems that ARPA-E
solves. So it could be anywhere from 3 to 4 or 5 years or it
could be even longer.
Senator Murkowski. The difficulty is in managing those
expectations.
Mr. Majumdar. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. You are looking at it from the
scientific perspective, and I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to both of you. I am very excited to think
about the fact that when you are confirmed, the leadership you
will bring to both of these important agencies.
If I might, Dr. McNutt, I would turn to you first. I was
pleased to note your connection to Colorado. You are a proud
graduate of Colorado College. The USGS has a long history of
directors who have deep roots in the landscapes, particularly
of the West. John Wesley Powell, the first director of the
USGS, of course is renowned for his adventures in the Grand
Canyon. I dare to say I think you meet that standard. Clearly,
there were times in your life where you spent more nights under
the stars in a year's time than you did under a roof. I think
we are going to be very well served by your leadership in the
USGS.
You also, I think, give us an important standard to keep in
mind in responding to Senator Bingaman's questions. We focus a
lot on one liquid, oil, a hydrocarbon, but I think if we focus
on the building block of life here on our planet, H2O, water,
and ensure that we have affordable, safe, and clean supplies of
water, we will have healthy societies, less conflict, and a
bright future. So I look forward to the work you do there.
If I could direct a question your way, you talked about the
need to survey the coasts and that we know very little about
those areas out to the 200-mile limit. Could you speak for a
minute or so on your plans there and what you think we could
do?
Ms. McNutt. Yes. Thank you for that question, Senator.
When I first arrived at my current institution, MBARI, we
had no capabilities basically in-house for under-sea mapping,
and I built a program there, which is now considered the
Nation's best for high-resolution, deep-sea mapping, which is
delivered by autonomous underwater vehicles, which is a high-
resolution, multi-beam sonar with sub-bottom profiling and is
the, basically, envy of the world.
Of course, the USGS' program, from what I understand right
now, is mostly coastal mapping, habitat mapping, and for its
mission right now, is a very good program, interferometric
mapping with unmanned surface vehicles.
But I think there is a lot of work to be done with this
vast portion of our under-sea territory which basically doubles
the land area of the U.S. out to the 200-mile limit where we
have resources that are basically unmapped and unassessed. So
if confirmed in this position, I would definitely like to move
the USGS in the direction of helping the U.S. catalog and
assess and inventory what we have in that area and work with
other agencies such as NOAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and MMS to help understand what we have in that region.
Senator Udall. Even those of us who represent land-locked
States look forward to those findings and that new data set. I
know the Senator from Alaska is eager to know about those
resources and to further expand the size of the State of
Alaska, I am sure.
[Laughter.]
Ms. McNutt. As a first step in that, the USGS has done a
great job actually up in the Arctic already.
Senator Udall. Thank you for those comments.
Dr. Majumdar, I want to welcome you as well. My wife and I
took our honeymoon in India and climbed some mountains there,
of all things, and I have great fondness for the Indian people
and have been proud to get to know a number of Indo-Americans
who have become Americans. I am proud to be an American with
you. I had a chance to meet the Dalai Lama yesterday, and when
you meet the Dalai Lama, of course, you think of Mahatma Gandhi
as well and that line of remarkable leaders who we have been
fortunate to have as human beings.
You clearly have a real interest in energy efficiency
technology. I think there is a lot of violent agreement now on
the Hill about the potential for energy efficiency. Could you
just speak for a minute, as I see my time will expire, about
this world of energy efficiency and what we could be doing and
perhaps some of the potential that we do not even see today
when it comes to energy efficiency?
Mr. Majumdar. Thank you, Senator. Thank you also for the
kind comments about your honeymoon in India.
Senator Udall. Yes.
Mr. Majumdar. I think energy efficiency is often called the
low-hanging fruit, but as Senator Bingaman had said the last
time when I testified, it is tough to choose what to pick. I
think that is appropriate.
When I look at energy efficiency, there are three areas
where energy goes, the big chunks. One is buildings, which is
40 percent of our energy, and three-quarters, 75 percent, of
our electricity. They are really in many ways inefficient. The
buildings do not work properly. Let me just give you an
example.
For example, in this building or in many large buildings,
the centralized chillers, which are by themselves very
efficient, but even if there is 1 percent in the building, the
big chiller has to start running, and that is very inefficient
as a system. So here is the problem. How do you take a
centralized system and make it decentralized so that you can
have cooling and heating on demand and only at certain
locations? So that is a technical challenge that I think, you
know, one could devote some effort in that. So buildings is one
big area.
Transportation systems, making more efficient internal
combustion engines; electrification, looking into batteries and
high energy density batteries, which is safe and which are low
cost, and that is on the transportation side.
Then the industrial. So things like cement, steel, glass
manufacturing needs a lot of heat and all that heat is wasted,
if some of the heat could be recovered and used in useful ways.
There is a lot of potential out there. So I think this is
really a huge opportunity for the United States.
Senator Udall. Thank you. You just demonstrated why you are
going to be a tremendous leader of ARPA-E. Thank you.
Mr. Majumdar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much. Dr. McNutt, in looking
at the work that you have done, I am obviously very impressed
with the ocean work, and certainly that is going to be
important as we move forward. I think probably one of the
biggest blanks in our scientific knowledge in America is ocean
conditions. I think that transcends to a lot of different
inquiries, not the least of which is salmon recovery, which is
really important in the Pacific Northwest. Certainly with
climate change, obviously, ocean conditions play a big part,
and we know very little about it. So I am impressed to see
that, and I am impressed to see that you bring that knowledge
to the agency.
Having said that, I have a much less visionary question for
you and much more practical. Those of us who live out west
frequently pick up USGS maps, and they are something we have
used for a long time. They are a tremendous resource for
Americans, particularly those of us who live in the West.
Unfortunately, every time I pick one up, if you look at the
bottom, it says it was based on work that was done in the
1960s.
Are there any plans afoot to bring this forward, or do you
have other higher priorities than this that are on the books?
Ms. McNutt. OK. That is a very good question, Senator, and
from what I understand, just based on some very preliminary
briefings, there are moves afoot to do new registrations of all
of the USGS data sets to make sure that they are all such that
the points from all of the data sets, whether it is a
topographic data set or a LANDSAT data set or an ecological
data set, that they are all perfectly registered, which will
improve all of them.
So whether that involves a reissuing of the maps, I would
guess that that probably does, but I will have to get back to
you on the details of exactly what that involves in terms of
the topo maps themselves. So I do not exactly have the answer
in terms of what that involves with the topographic maps, but I
believe it does because of the fact that not all of them
actually go back to exactly the same datum.
Senator Risch. That is true--they do not go back to the
same data. The actual work on the topo maps is good; the
problem is there have been a lot of changes. Many, many roads
have been built over the last 40-50 years that are not on
there, and structures, improvements and what have you. So I
would encourage you to do something in that regard, although I
understand your focus is on ocean conditions. Those of us that
live in the West--we are interior States, as Senator Udall
indicated, although we do have a seaport in Idaho, believe it
or not, we are interested in the surface that we have available
to us.
Ms. McNutt. Senator, I do not want to give the impression
that my focus is entirely on the ocean, although I do believe
that there are many new opportunities there. Basically as
humans, we live on the land and that is where the rubber is
going to meet the road with many of the challenges we face. So
certainly I would, if confirmed, not ignore the land where we
have to live, where we have to grow our food, where we have to
build our homes, where we have to build our constructs. So, no,
I will not ignore the land.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Risch, let me just ask, before going
to Senator Barrasso, where is your seaport?
Senator Risch. It is in Lewiston, Idaho.
The Chairman. Lewiston, Idaho. I did not know that was a
seaport.
Senator Risch. It is a seaport. So long as the dams remain
in the lower Snake River, it will be a seaport.
The Chairman. All right. Yes, I learned quite a bit this
morning.
Go ahead, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to congratulate both of you on these nominations. I
want to welcome your families, congratulate them as well for
being here.
Dr. McNutt, thanks so much for taking the time to come to
my office and visit earlier today. We talked about a range of
things, including monitoring of volcanoes in the West. We
talked about energy needs across the world, talked about global
climate change, talked about carbon and carbon sequestration.
I wanted to just visit a little bit about some of the
energy needs. Wyoming is a State with abundant resources in
coal, which to me remain the most affordable, reliable, secure
source of energy. I think it is an irreplaceable part of our
energy portfolio. Clean coal and carbon capture and
sequestration technology are critical components of making our
energy cleaner. Wyoming is a leader in these issues and I
believe can be a big part of the solution. We also have
significant capacity, as you and I have discussed, for
underground carbon sequestration compared to other States.
Can I ask you what role you see coal playing in America's
energy future?
Ms. McNutt. Yes, Senator. I have been briefed on some
preliminary USGS studies, and from what I understand, the
country does have significant coal resources, but from what I
understand, about 0.5 percent is recoverable in existing mines
and about 10 percent is easily recoverable. Then the curve
starts going up pretty quickly in terms of the cost of
recovery. So although there is a lot of it out there, the cost
starts going up pretty quickly, and as the cost goes up, it is
because of the technology for getting it out of the ground and
the environmental costs and other things too. So at that point,
it starts trading off with other types of energy as well. So we
have a lot of it is the good news, but the bad news is we start
paying more for it.
Senator Barrasso. What role will your agency play in the
administration's efforts toward carbon capture and
sequestration?
Ms. McNutt. The role that the USGS plays in that is that we
are involved in doing the methodology and ultimately, if
funded, an assessment of how much storage is available, both
geological and biological, for CO2 storage.
Senator Barrasso. What kind of major challenges do you
think we face in working on carbon capture and sequestration?
Senator Barrasso. I think that basically the back-of-the-
envelope calculations that I have seen from both my involvement
with Stanford University and my service on Schlumberger's
Technology Committee is that the U.S. as a Nation has decades'
worth of storage in abandoned oil fields and centuries of
storage in salt mines.
Senator Barrasso. As you know, throughout the West, there
are split estates where the land is owned by one group for
ranching purposes and others and then the minerals under the
land by another. Sometimes that is the Federal Government. You
may not have given thought to this, but the pore space under
the land--it is not mineral. It is not the top for grazing or
for growing. It is the pore space, and we have been dealing
with that in Wyoming. I do not know if you have ever given any
thought to the Federal Government, if they would own that pore
space or who would own that pore space, or how you would
envision that with some of these split estates where the
surface is owned by one and the under-surface, the minerals, by
the Federal Government because we have a lot of Federal
Government involvement.
Ms. McNutt. Senator, these sound like very difficult legal
and policy discussions that would be well above my pay grade.
Senator Barrasso. They may be your pay grade. You will, I
am sure, hear more about those.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Most of what we consider around here is above
our respective pay grades, but that does not hold us back.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, did you have any other
questions?
Senator Murkowski. I do not have any follow-ups.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you both very much. We hope
to be able to move your nominations to the full Senate quickly,
and we appreciate your being here.
That will conclude our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Marcia K. McNutt, Ph.D., to Questions From
Senator Murkowski
Question 1. An increasing number of technological improvements have
shrunk the drilling footprint for oil and gas, including deeper and
longer reaches for accessing oil and gas reserves. In your considerable
experience with the earth sciences, have you encountered any scenario
where directional oil and gas drilling has caused surface impacts
outside of its drillpad footprint? I mean to ask in terms of surface
subsidence, seismicity, geological changes, anything that a layperson
might consider a risk.
Answer. I am not an expert on directional drilling and its
environmental impact, but do have some passing exposure to the
technology from my service on Schlumberger's Technology Committee. I
have personally used directional drilling at my own institution to
install the casing for a cabled observatory across a very dynamic
shoreline to the deep sea. Directional drilling offsets the footprint
of the surface expression of the drilling from the subsurface tapping
of the oil and gas deposits. My understanding is that the issues you
raise, such as ground subsidence, induced seismicity, and other
geological changes are less dependent on the drilling technology than
on other factors.
Question 2. I recently had the opportunity to visit a 4-D seismic
facility in the Gulf region. It was a truly fascinating technology to
witness in action--originally there was two-dimensional seismic and now
3-D seismic is commonly used to zero in on mineral resources thousands
of feet below the ground or the ocean floor. My question is whether
you've had a chance to view and really get a sense of this modern
surveying technology, and if you feel it will play an important role in
energy exploration during your tenure?
Answer. A few years ago I had the opportunity to see the fabulous
imaging facilities at the University of Texas, Austin. I was similarly
impressed by its capability to visualize large 3-D seismic data sets.
At the time, they were using the facility for both aquifer and oil
reservoir modeling. Such 3-D imaging is definitely here now for energy
exploration, and I believe that during my tenure, if confirmed, we will
need to move to 4-D on account of the highly unstable state of
resources such as methane hydrates. This is yet another area where the
USGS will rely on partnerships on account of the high overhead in
building and maintaining such state-of the-art data acquisition,
processing, and imaging facilities. Based on my experience, there is
excess external capacity that the USGS can leverage.
Question 3. I have a bill (S. 782) pending to better fund USGS
efforts to monitor the nation's volcanoes. It would support upgraded
observation efforts, not just in Yellowstone and along the West Coast,
but in Alaska as well. What is your opinion of the bill and the
importance of better science concerning our nation's geophysical
hazards?
Answer. I agree that it is important to have the best and most up-
to-date science regarding natural hazards that is available to us.
Worldwide, events associated with geophysical hazards cause many deaths
and result in billions of dollars of damage in destruction to homes and
infrastructure and aid. Information provided by the USGS is important
to help in both the preparation for these events and in our
understanding of how and why these events happen. I am not familiar
with the details of S. 782, but if confirmed I will become more
familiar with this legislation.
Question 4. Secretary Salazar recently signed an order that
outlines the Department of the Interior's basic strategy for responding
to the ``current and future impacts of climate change on America's
land, water, ocean, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources.'' As a non-
regulatory agency responsible for producing objective scientific
information, what role do you believe the USGS can and should play in
this effort?
Answer. As the science agency for the Department of the Interior
and because of its interdisciplinary climate change science expertise,
the USGS is well positioned to provide objective, unbiased, timely and
responsive science information to a diverse group of decision makers.
The principal focus of this information is to provide a better
understanding to policy makers of the impacts and effects of climate
change on a wide array of America's natural and cultural resources,
including water availability for both human and ecological needs, the
ability to find, extract and transport energy resources, the
proliferation of invasive species and wildland fire, and the risks of
sea-level rise and coastal erosion on America's critical
infrastructure, to name just a few. I believe that the appropriate role
for the USGS is to provide the science needed to enable more effective
and cost efficient decision and policy making.
Question 5. Earlier this year, Secretary Salazar testified before
our Committee about the renewable energy potential of the United
States. The maps he brought with him were meant to show resource
locations throughout the country, but left off my home state of Alaska
as well as Hawaii. Obviously, I wasn't happy about that, and it's not
an isolated incident. Quite a few of the maps produced by executive
agencies depict only the Lower 48, and make no mention of our offshore
states. If confirmed as Director of the USGS, will you commit to
including all 50 states--including Alaska and Hawaii--on any map that
depicts the Lower 48?
Answer. I will, and I can think of no reason why Alaska and Hawaii
should not be included with the rest of the states in a map depicting
the entire United States. I might add personally that I have had many
occasions in the course of my own research to visit many locations in
both Alaska and Hawaii, and hope to make more visits to USGS facilities
there if confirmed.
Question 6. Please describe the role of the USGS in addressing
water availability problems throughout the United States.
Answer. As I understand it, the USGS develops and delivers
technical information and analytical tools to resource professionals
and the general public, allowing them to evaluate the questions they
face about the quantity, quality, and use of water resources across the
Nation. This includes hydrological, geological, and biological
information, as well as the ancillary data that allow sound analysis of
that information. I am also aware that much of this information is
provided through the USGS's Cooperative Water Program, a partnership
with states, tribes, and local governments, to provide important
information.
Question 7. If confirmed, how would you increase our understanding
of underground water resources?
Answer. Historically, the USGS has been a leader in the assessment
and development of techniques for studying the Nation's groundwater
resources. If confirmed, I will work to build on these strengths to
assure that the USGS continues to provide both relevant, up-to-date
basic information and cutting edge technology to evaluate the Nation's
groundwater resources.
Question 8. Please describe what will be the most important ground
water related challenges facing the nation over the next decade and the
role that the USGS should play in addressing these challenges.
Answer. Groundwater is one of the Nation's most important natural
resources, and it faces many pressures from human development. My own
home is in the Salinas Valley, the ``salad bowl of the Nation,'' which
exports $3.4 billion annually in agricultural produce thanks to the
Salinas aquifer. The challenges include the quality of the resource,
its sustainability, and its connection to surface water. Climate change
could both increase these pressures and make groundwater even more
valuable to society during periods of drought and water stress. Many
aquifers cross State boundaries. I believe that the USGS is the primary
federal agency responsible for providing an objective assessment of the
quality and quantity of groundwater in the Nation's aquifers, and the
agency has a unique capability to provide nationally consistent
information. The USGS also plays a major role in developing models and
techniques for evaluating groundwater.
Question 9. If confirmed, how will you manage the stream gauge
program? What options will you pursue to ensure that adequate funding
is provided to the program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to manage the streamgage
program in accordance with the plan described in the National
Streamflow Information Program documents. I am very aware of the
importance of the USGS streamgage program and will work with the
Administration to ensure it receives continued support.
Question 10. Please describe your perspective on the appropriate
role the federal government, the state government and the private
sector should play in collecting and analyzing water monitoring data.
Answer. There is a certain portion of water monitoring that can and
should be left to the private sector because there is a regulatory
framework that oversees it, a large enough market to drive competition,
a simple connection between what is measured and who it is measured
for, and/or a user base willing (or required) to pay for the
information. The role for government is indicated when the private
sector is unlikely to step in because the monitoring is regarded as a
public good and it is, for that reason, not possible to apportion costs
to the users. In fact, depending on whether the year is a flood year or
a drought year, the degree to which various federal, state, local, and
private groups have a need for the information could change. Federal/
state partnerships are an excellent mechanism for sharing the
responsibility for monitoring because many surface and subsurface water
systems cross state boundaries; even within states, jurisdictions are
shared.
Question 11. As you are well aware, the Arctic has recently become
an area of great focus, and scientific input is essential to guiding
the development of policies in and for this region. The Federal
approach to Arctic scientific research is encapsulated in the Arctic
Research and Policy Act of 1984. This Act created the US Arctic
Research Commission (USARC), a small independent agency that provides
goals for Arctic research, and created the Interagency Arctic Research
and Policy Committee (IARPC), which implements these goals. These
agencies and yours have specific responsibilities outlined in the Act,
yet recently these entities have not worked together effectively to
create an integrated scientific research plan and an associated budget.
Will you provide leadership from DOI and USGS to ensuring that the Act
is implemented as defined in law?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the Arctic Research and Policy
Act, I know that Arctic policy is important to Secretary Salazar and
agree that scientific research is important to effective management of
Arctic resources and ecosystems. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
USGS is providing leadership, within the context of its role under the
law, to implement that Act.
Question 12. Will you commit to supporting re-investment in Arctic
research infrastructure, critical to the conduct of scientific
research?
Answer. I agree that scientific research is critically important to
effective management of Arctic resources and ecosystems. I will commit
to soliciting, evaluating and considering research needs for the Arctic
within the U.S. Geological Survey's budget process.
Question 13. We commemorated the 20th anniversary of the giant
Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska last March. After the spill, Congress
passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. That law promised Americans a
robust oil spill prevention and response research program. The
interagency coordinating committee on oil pollution research, created
by that law that includes your agency, besides MMS, is an ``orphan''
committee. To the best of my knowledge this committee has not met
recently and has never met regularly. Yet we have expanded the nation's
offshore drilling program in Alaska and citizens of Alaska's North
Slope have sued to slow down exploration because Alaskans still have
questions about oil cleanup in ice conditions. A new 8-nation Arctic
Marine Shipping Assessment, delivered to the Arctic Council in April,
further stresses the need for this research. As such, will you commit
to ensure that the nation has a well-planned and support well-funded
oil spill research program, and further that this program, in cold
regions, is well coordinated with the US Arctic Research Commission and
the Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee?
Answer. I understand that the USGS has done significant research on
the biological impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, but I am not
familiar with the interagency coordinating committee you mention. If
confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the work of this
committee and will ensure that the USGS work in this arena is
coordinated with MMS and is available to the committee. Through my
position as chair of the National Research Council's Ocean Studies
Board, I know that the Board has been asked to undertake a study of oil
spill cleanup in ice-covered regions and is in the process of raising
the necessary agency support to begin the study. I hope that the
results of this study will also help with concrete recommendations for
any research needs for oil spill research for ice covered areas.
Responses of Marcia K. McNutt, Ph.D., to Questions From Senator
Barrasso
Question 14. Secretary Salazar recently signed a Secretarial Order
incorporating climate change into all land management decisions at the
Department of Interior. I am concerned that the Order puts into
question past and future management agreements.
It could have serious implications for all public land uses:
Recreational use;
Oil and gas development;
Renewable energy development;
Grazing;
And Hunting and Fishing;
These regulations will hit the Western United States the hardest.
This Administration cannot continue to promulgate sweeping regulations
on climate change, before Congress acts on an energy strategy. These
decisions have major impacts on the American people, American jobs, and
our economy. As the lone science agency within the Department of
Interior, you will be at the center of this initiative.
What is your agency's role in this initiative?
What will your focus be in implementing this order?
What mechanisms will you use to provide transparency in your
agency's research and recommendations?
Answer. As I understand it, the USGS role in implementing the
Secretarial Order is to provide the science, monitoring, modeling, and
decision support to enable and empower more effective decisions and
policies by those who make them. Thus, its focus is on providing the
very best climate change science information in a timely and responsive
manner so that those responsible for making resource management
decisions and for developing and shaping the Nation's policies
regarding resources impacted by climate change can do so with
confidence. If confirmed, I am committed to the continuation of the
USGS peer-review process, which ensures that all science-based
information and related conclusions are unbiased and objective, and
that the processes involved are well-understood and transparent.
Question 15. There is a Yellowstone Volcano Observatory in Wyoming,
jointly operated by the USGS, Yellowstone National Park, and the
University of Utah. The volcanic monitoring work done at Yellowstone
provides important data for ensuring public safety. I have received
comments from people in the State that the data on volcanic activity
produced by the Yellowstone Volcanic Observatory is not easily
accessible for non-Observatory officials.
What can USGS do to share appropriate information with local
officials, emergency personnel, and the public in order to plan
and prepare for volcanic activity?
I would like to have your commitment to work with me and
those officials to identify solutions to these problems.
Answer. While I am not familiar with this specific issue, I agree
that it is important to have up-to-date scientific and monitoring data
available to the public. If confirmed, I will look into the situation
at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and look forward to addressing
your constituents' concerns.
Responses of Marcia K. McNutt, Ph.D., to Questions From Senator
Stabenow
Question 16. The United States Geological Survey plays an important
role in Great Lakes management and research. These waters make up 20
percent of the world's fresh water supply, and thirty-three million
people rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, including 10
million just from Lake Michigan alone. The Great Lakes' coastlines are
also home to wetlands, dunes and endangered species and plants. Lake
Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any
Great Lake. However, the Great Lakes are not just an important natural
resource, but they are also a critical part of Michigan's economy and
quality of life. Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year to
enjoy our beaches, fishing and boating.
Given the importance of the Great Lakes and the role USGS plays in
their management and protection, could you please describe USGS's role
in working with other agencies to ensure that the $400 million Congress
is appropriating for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is
effectively used?
Answer. I appreciate the value and importance of collaboration for
achieving the goals of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in
a fiscally responsible and effective manner. I am informed that the
USGS is in close communication with other agencies involved in this
initiative and is coordinating its efforts to avoid overlap and
maximize use of funds. If confirmed, I look forward to working to
ensure effective use of the Great Lakes Restoration funds appropriated
by Congress.
Question 17. Dr. McNutt, the USGS is currently in the lead in
inventorying the various geologic opportunities across the Nation for
sequestration of carbon from our coal-fired and other carbon-intensive
power plants. Can you please explain to the Committee your views on the
future of carbon sequestration as a means to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and your vision of where the USGS would fit into this future
as the premier earth science agency of the Federal government? Would
you agree to keep this Committee informed as to the status of the
inventory of carbon capture and sequestration sites, including the
viability of the Mt. Simon formation in Michigan?
Answer. The true global storage capacity of geologic formations is
unknown at this point. Geologic storage capacity varies on a regional
and national scale, as well as by reservoir type. A more refined
understanding of geologic storage capacity is needed to determine how
much of the overall storage capacity could actually be utilized to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I understand that the USGS has worked
up a methodology for assessing the capacity for geologic sequestration
of carbon that is currently out for peer review. If confirmed, I look
forward to keeping the Committee informed of our progress in gaining
understanding at various sites.
______
Responses of Arun Majumdar to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. When it comes to advanced research project agencies run
by the government, I think most of us are familiar with DARPA (Defense)
and HSARPA (Homeland Security). It seems to me that a major difference
with ARPA-E, if not the difference, is who the customer is. For both
DARPA and HSARPA, the customer is the Government. For ARPA-E, the
customer is the individual consumer. What differences do you envision
ARPA-E having from the other advanced research project agencies to meet
the consumer needs?
Answer. I agree that the end user issue is a key distinction. In
the case of ARPA-E there are a number of potential customers. For
example, in some cases ARPA-E will look at common technical barriers
faced by an industry and create a focused effort to overcome or
circumvent these barriers. In such cases, the customer will be the
industry or business. In the case of efficiency work, APRA-E customers
could be utilities that are implementing efficiency programs. Federal,
state and local governments could also be consumers, given their large
building stocks and transportation fleets.
Another difference between ARPA-E and DARPA/HSARPA is that, while
ARPA-E will be focused on creating new technology, it will also be
strongly influenced by the demands of policy and markets. Hence, cost
and economic issues as well as scalability will be key factors
affecting ARPA-E decisions, whereas DARPA/HSARPA are generally shielded
from such considerations. It is very important for ARPA-E to engage
with both business communities and policy makers to ensure that there
is alignment between technology, policy, and markets so that ARPA-E
technologies can be adopted quickly.
Question 2. Please explain your view of the relationship and role
of the existing applied science programs within DOE, the energy
frontier research centers, the new energy innovation hubs, and ARPA-E
when it comes to developing new energy technologies.
Answer. ARPA-E will be a projects agency, with its projects
designed to identify, anticipate, and overcome technical barriers that
require innovation. ARPA-E will partner with the Office of Science to
expand or adapt its basic research to overcome or circumvent these
barriers, and it will work with the applied programs (EERE, FE, OE, NE)
to deploy these innovations to the market at scale. One key difference
between ARPA-E and other DOE offices is that program managers in ARPA-E
will be temporary; therefore, partnerships with the DOE institutional
programs will be essential to provide institutional memory in these
technical fields. Speed, risk-taking, nimble, agile, internal
competition, focus on technological innovation, addressing market
needs, and time-bound describe the way ARPA-E will operate.
ARPA-E and EFRCs: EFRCs are focused on basic science--understanding
matter at the level of electrons, understanding complex emergent
behavior, highly non-equilibrium behavior, etc. Their goal is to
understand nature. The relationship between ARPA-E and EFRCs will be
two fold:
1. ARPA-E will use the scientific toolbox provided by the
EFRCs and other science programs to attack a problem or a
technical barrier of industrial relevance.
2. ARPA-E will identify technical barriers of industrial
relevance, and if it finds that the science is not understood
well, inform relevant EFRCs and other science programs to focus
on better understanding the science.
ARPA-E and Hubs: The Energy Innovation Hubs have the following
characteristics: (a) they will look at long-term transformation of a
whole field; (b) they will span basic science to market penetration;
(c) the teams will be placed under one roof (or perhaps two). In
contrast, ARPA-E's focus will be short term (3 years) projects-based
programs that will address a technical barrier of industrial relevance.
Once that barrier is overcome or circumvented, that program will be
closed and new programs, perhaps in other topics, will be created.
ARPA-E and the Hubs will, hence, be distinct but they will be able to
leverage each other.
Question 3. Given the constraints on the DOE budget and the desire
to increase funding for the science and applied R&D programs, what
priority should be placed on funding ARPA-E?
Answer. As the nominee for director of ARPA-E, I believe funding
ARPA-E should be a very high priority. Particularly in these early
years, it is important to show growth in the budget in order to build a
constituency within the technical community and recruit the best
program managers. As the members of this committee know, Congress
included ARPA-E in the America COMPETES Act in large part due to the
need for innovative approaches to energy. We have a three pronged
energy challenge in terms of: (a) energy independence and national
security; (b) reduced green house gas emissions; (c) American
competitiveness in the global market. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with DOE leadership and with Congress to ensure that ARPA-E has
the funding necessary to make real progress on all three fronts.
Question 4. Funding for current ARPA-E programs came from the
stimulus bill. Do you expect a funding request for ARPA-E in the Fiscal
Year 2011 DOE budget? If so, for how much?
Answer. I have not been involved in the formulation of DOE's FY
2011 budget; but if confirmed, I will work with DOE leadership and with
Congress to assure adequate funding for ARPA-E.
Question 5. I understand around 3,500 concept papers were received
in response to the initial funding opportunity released in April. Do
you expect a similar number of concept papers for future funding
opportunities? When do you expect the final decision to be made on
which concept applications from the initial opportunity will receive
funding?
Answer. While I was not involved with the initial ARPA-E
solicitation, I believe that the high volume of concept papers
submitted indicates a very strong demand for this type of funding
opportunity, suggesting that future solicitations will also yield a
high volume of applications. My understanding is that DOE intends to
announce award selections from this first FOA by the end of this year.
I also understanding that, while this first FOA was extremely broad,
the next may seek to identify topic areas of greatest interest to ARPA-
E. At the same time, however, I believe we should make some provision
for unsolicited proposals in topics not covered by focused programs.
Such an option can help assure that ARPA-E does not miss any truly
innovative and game-changing ideas. ARPA-E needs to create a reputation
of openness--a ``go-to'' place for truly extraordinary ideas.
Question 6. The ARPA-E funding opportunity announcement issued in
July, 2009, severely limited the participation of the Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and prohibited the FFRDCs
from leading projects. Do you see this restriction being lifted for
future funding opportunities?
Answer. Good ideas and innovations can come from anywhere--
academia, national labs, industry, non-profits, individual inventors,
etc. ARPA-E should be able to support the best ideas, regardless of
where they come, including FFRDCs. If confirmed, I plan to look into
this issue and draw on the lessons learned from the first solicitation
to see if any adjustments are necessary.
Question 7. The funding opportunity announcement also limited the
period of performance for projects to 36 months. Technology innovation
is neither a linear nor predictable process. As director of ARPA-E how
would you measure the success of projects funded under this funding
opportunity if the stated objectives of the projects are not met as a
result of this somewhat arbitrary time constraint? Do you think that an
arbitrary time constraint is consistent with the mission of ARPA-E?
Answer. I agree that technology innovation is not necessarily
linear or predictable, but we have an obligation to strike a balance by
preventing an open-ended process that taps into a funding stream in
perpetuity. That being said, some projects, even if they are not
``completed,'' may merit support beyond the time constraint, based on
progress or promise. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
committee to balance these priorities.
Question 8. How quickly do you anticipate having enough Program
Managers on board to move forward with additional funding
opportunities? From which sectors (industry, laboratories,
universities, etc.) do you hope to find and attract program managers?
Answer. As a new agency, ARPA-E must be staffed quickly with a team
of the ablest, most experienced men and women in energy science,
technology, and business. If confirmed, I will work to put together
such a team. Program managers will receive both autonomy and scrutiny
as they work to create projects that identify and reduce barriers
through technological innovation and address the three goals of ARPA-
E--energy independence and security; reducd green house gas emission;
and American competitiveness. Since program mangers will be temporary,
i.e. 3-4 years, there will be a constant churn of fresh minds and ideas
in ARPA-E.
I anticipate that at current funding levels, ARPA-E should have a
team of about 10-12 technical program managers. Currently, it has
three. My goal will be to recruit program managers who have the
following characteristics:
1. Active/practicing scientists and engineers from the best
R&D labs in academia, national labs, and industry
2. Limited appointment of 3-5 years
3. Solid science/engineering foundations, deep knowledge of
their field, and demonstrated creative R&D
4. Demonstrated ability to ``sniff out'' important problems,
of interdisciplinary work, of ``team science'', and innovations
in fields other than their own
5. Entrepreneurial
6. Ability to span and bridge basic science and engineering
systems
7. Willingness to learn and ability to learn quickly
Question 9. Once you have program managers on board, do you
anticipate that the program managers would be given the freedom and
flexibility to construct research and development teams from among the
various participants in our Nation's scientific and technological
enterprise without limitations on the level of participation by any
member of the group?
Answer. I believe that freedom and flexibility are vital to the
success of ARPA-E. As I noted above, speed, agility, and risk-taking
are integral to the core mission of ARPA-E. If confirmed, I plan to
work with program managers to foster an innovative spirit that taps
into as many scientific and technological brains as possible. I will
give these program managers, who are the best in their field,
sufficient autonomy to design their own programs within the strategic
plans of ARPA-E. Having said that, these managers will also be
scrutinized as to the design of the programs and how they manage them.
Program managers will be required to take ``deep dives'' into their
program topic and be in close touch with PIs within their programs
(multiple site visits per year, getting to know how teams are
performing and what are the barriers in the various labs, etc.) and
evaluate how they are performing. Program managers will be encouraged
to make decisions on when to terminate projects that are not productive
and reallocate resources to those projects that show promise.
Question 10. Do you anticipate cost sharing to be a regular
requirement for ARPA-E proposals?
Answer. Coming from the University of California system, I am aware
of the tight budget situation that makes cost sharing a major concern.
I am sympathetic to the burden of cost sharing for universities,
national labs, and entrepreneurial businesses. If confirmed, I plan to
look into this issue and draw on the lessons learned from the first
solicitation to see if any adjustments are necessary.
Responses of Arun Majumdar to Questions From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made
significant investments in advanced manufacturing so that we can ensure
that the technologies of the future are made right here in the United
States. My home state of Michigan is a perfect example of how we can
utilize our manufacturing and engineering expertise, highly developed
manufacturing infrastructure, and world class universities to provide a
home for advanced manufacturing technologies and processes. I
understand that ARPA-E is designed to invest in the development of
cutting edge technologies, but how do you see the program playing a
larger role in manufacturing these technologies? For example, can ARPA-
E play a role in developing the advanced manufacturing processes that
will be needed to take many of these projects to the next level?
Answer. Yes. In my view, one of the strengths of ARPA-E is its
flexibility to look across the energy space to address all sorts of
barriers. We know that there are currently challenges regarding mass
manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and other
technologies. For example, batteries are a significant challenge in
broad-scale deployment of hybrid and electric vehicles. Most of the
materials in today's lithion ion batteries were discovered in the US,
but the manufacturing is now in Asia. If confirmed, I will look to see
how ARPA-E can take the lead in advanced battery technology while also
creating a manufacturing base in the US. There is great benefit in co-
locating manufacturing and advanced technology development since there
needs to be feedback between them. Lessons learnt from how the
semiconductor industry competed in the 1980s and 1990s could be very
valuable for American competitiveness in the global energy market.
Question 2. Following passage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, the ARPA-E program has been widely successful in
promoting innovation all across the United States. By investing in
technologies that can truly transform our energy sector, the program
has received thousands of applications from businesses seeking to
demonstrate new clean energy technologies. Many businesses and
universities in my home state of Michigan have sought to capitalize on
this opportunity and demonstrate that Michigan is home to a large
portion of clean energy technology development.
As the agency moves forward on plans for future competitions, I
would like emphasize the importance of taking steps to ensure that many
of these cutting-edge solutions come from the broadest number of
innovators. Given the volume of applications that were submitted, how
will you as director of the program ensure that each application is
given a fair and comprehensive review?
Answer. I am committed to giving each application due consideration
in the process. While I was not part of the initial ARPA-E
solicitation, my understanding is that DOE made resources and reviewers
available to adequately vet the concept papers submitted.
If confirmed, I will oversee a review process that is open, fair,
and transparent. Having been on the receiving end of both good and bad
news in the past, I can not emphasize enough how important it is to
engage with proposers in a productive and open manner.
It is my understanding that the purpose of the first FOA was to
address a broad, pent-up demand for this kind of funding and to
identify topic areas of greatest interest to ARPA-E. If confirmed, I
plan to create focused programs to solve particular technical barriers.
At the same time, I also recognize the value of an option for
considering unsolicited proposals in topics not covered by the focused
programs. Such an option can help assure that ARPA-E does not miss any
truly innovative, game-changing ideas. ARPA-E needs to create a
reputation of openness--a ``go-to'' place for truly extraordinary
ideas.