APPENDIX II Responses to Additional Questions QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOHNSTON FOR JAMES RANDOLPH Question 1. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by any Federal, State or other law enforcement authority for violation of any Federal, State, country or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain. Response. No. Question 2. Have you ever been convicted (including a plea of guilty or nolo contendre) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? Response. No. Question 3. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide details. Response. No. Question 4. Have you or your spouse ever represented in any capacity (e.g., employee, attorney, business, or political adviser or consultant), with or without compensation, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe such relationship. Response. No. Question 5. If you or your spouse have ever been formally associated with a law, accounting, public relations firm or other service organization, have any of your or your spouse's associates represented, in any capacity, with or without compensation, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe such relationship. Response. No. Question 6. During the past ten years, have you or your spouse received any compensation from, or been involved in any financial or business transactions with, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please furnish details. Response. No. Question 7. Have you or your spouse ever registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? If so, please furnish details. Response. No. Question 8. Were all your taxes (Federal, State, and local) current (filed and paid) as of the date of your nomination hearing? If not, please explain. Response. Yes. Question 9. Have all your Federal, State, and local taxes always been paid on time? If not, please explain. Response. Yes. Question 10. If confirmed, are there any known limitations on your willingness or ability to serve for your full term or until the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Response. No. Question 11. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you think the Committee would want to be aware of in considering your nomination. Response. I believe I have disclosed all information about myself that may be relevant to this action. Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Washington, DC, December 24, 1991. Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and the distinguished members of your Committee on November 13, 1991, for my confirmation hearing for the position of Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. Enclosed for the record are the answers to the questions submitted to me in writing. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, [Enclosures.] JAMES G. RANDOLPH, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WALLOP Question. Mr. Randolph, as I stated in my opening remarks, I would hope that in your new position you would pay special attention to how our nation's fossil resources are being used. It is incomprehensible to me how we can deny the people of America the use of one of our most abundant natural resources. I speak, in particular, of the use of coal. As I have already noted, my state of Wyoming is the largest coal producing state in the nation; and we are very interested in opening up new markets and maintaining our leadership role. The United States right now has a leadership position in clean coal technology development. It is vital we maintain that leadership role and make the technology available to developing countries such as China. As important as these technologies are to perceived international concerns about global warming, they are independently important to our nation's effort to utilize coal in an environmentally benign manner. The Department has not been doing enough in the area known as coal refining. As a result, the Committee included some major coal refining R&D initiatives in S. 1220, the National Energy Security Act. I also believe another area of concern to the Committee is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Congress authorized DOE to lease oil for storage in the SPR in 1990. While the Department did not get as broad authority as it would like in the recent Interior Appropriations Act, it is important that DOE initiate bilateral initiatives with countries who are prepared to lease oil for the SPR. Mr. Randolph, can you give me your views on the areas I have touched on? Will you support aggressive efforts to promote Clean Coal Technology, coal refining R&D, and bilateral SPR initiatives? Answer. I am in total agreement with your view that we should not deny Americans the benefits of abundant, domestic energy resources such as coal. As I stated previously, coal is one of our dominant energy sources. Please note that while the NES projects that coal is likely to remain a major contributor for the foreseeable future. It does not mandate or even seek that outcome; NES and the Administration's position is to do R&D, remove barriers and let the market determine the outcome. Coal now supplies about a quarter of our country's total energy consumption and more than 56 percent of our electricity. But for coal to maintain its role in current markets and to have the potential to expand into new markets, it must be able to meet increasingly tight environmental standards. That's why I fully support the ongoing Clean Coal Technology Program. We must develop and demonstrate that new methods fully meet new environmental and efficiency goals so that utility and industrial leaders will use these methods with confidence and assurance their decisions will be considered prudent by their respective regulatory bodies. I fully support moving ahead with Round 5 of the Clean Coal Technology Program, and I want to assure the U.S. obtains maximum benefit from its investments in these advanced technologies. Once U.S. utilities and industries choose clean coal technologies for some of their major new or remodeled plants, it will strengthen our ability to export this technology to others. I support these programs and consider them a major function of my position. Regarding coal refining, I view the term as encompassing a broad spectrum of related technologies, all of which convert coal into usable or beneficial products in addition to being a heat source for electricity generation or steam. Bringing these concepts together in an integrated "coal refinery" is still, in my opinion, at the early stage of an evolutionary process, but I believe many of the Department's ongoing R&D and Clean Coal Technology programs are positively supporting the evolution of the refining concept. For example, the work DOE is doing in coal gasification, liquefaction and fuel cells is directly relevant to the eventual development of the coal refining concept. As these processes develop and the market determines what value-added products make the most economic sense, I believe the work underway represents key or basic building blocks for the coal refining concept and I feel this work should continue. Regarding bilateral SPR initiatives, as a military man, I appreciate the value of adequate emergency preparedness and in assuring that the country has an adequate response capability should we be confronted with a future energy emergency. I see the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as the primary component of that response capability, and I endorse the need to ensure that the Reserve's crude oil inventory remains large enough to provide both an effective response and perhaps even more important, an effective deterrent to the threat of an energy emergency. Obviously, we should strive to fill the SPR at the lowest practical cost. I have not been personally involved to this point with the Administration's examination of the leasing option, but certainly we should examine any option that might reduce the burden on the U.S. taxpayer. Ultimately the decision to proceed with SPR oil leasing will be dictated largely by the terms under which a supplier would be willing to provide the oil, and I think that it would be in our best interest to fully explore the possibilities with potential suppliers. QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SEYMOUR Question. Mr. Randolph, President Bush's National Energy Strategy included a provision to authorize the leasing of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. Do you support the leasing of Elk Hills? What energy and economic benefits do you foresee from the leasing of Elk Hills? Answer. My view is that the decision to lease the Elk Hills field should be largely an economic decision-in other words, what makes the most sense from a dollars and cents standpoint. While I have not yet had a chance to study this issue, I understand that the National Energy Strategy supports the leasing of the Elk Hills reserve in order to increase its operating efficiency (i.e., because of expected energy and economic benefits). Hon. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and the distinguished members of your Committee on November 13, 1991, for my confirmation hearing for the position of Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Enclosed for the record is the answer to the question submitted to me in writing. [Enclosure.] GREGG WARD, Assistant Secretary. Question. Mr. Ward, the DOE Organization Act calls for BPA to be "a separate and distinct entity" within the DOE. Traditionally, it has been recognized that the mission of our Nation's regional power marketing agencies is very different from the other elements of the DOE and less in need of a centralized focus. How do you understand the mission of the Bonneville Power Administration within the Pacific Northwest Region? How do you feel, as Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs for the DOE, you can help facilitate the important relationship between the Pacific Northwest Congressional delegation and BPA to which I refer in my statement? Answer. Briefly, the mission of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is to assure a reliable electric energy system in the Pacific Northwest while balancing economic, technical and environmental considerations. Within this broad mission, BPA has many important responsibilities, including marketing power from the region's hydrogenerating projects; constructing transmis |