And yet we're just not moving that issue very well at the moment, with strong resistance on the part of some and in some instances this administration. What I'm referring to are the NERI and the NEP projects that are within our budgets and are a part of that technology or research or R&D that, at least in passing, you reference. Is it possible or do you have a position on these projects? Will you support these projects or projects, these and others like them, as it relates to the wise development of nuclear energy?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Senator, let me respond to some of your points. On the most recent one, the projects are ones I'm not familiar with in detail, but I will certainly look into them and, if confirmed, as I have indicated before, I do want to help support the Department on moving ahead appropriately on nuclear projects. These projects, if they are deserving ones, I certainly would be prepared to support them. But I'm not familiar with them in detail.

Senator CRAIG. The Congress believes they are and we would hope you would and the Department would, because we've got to get on with the business. There is a growing concern out there, even, I should say, amongst the more enlightened anti-nuclear folks, that you can't get to where they want to get in the environment without nuclear generated electricity or energy, and new technology I suspect is a part of the political correctness of that changing position, and we ought try to get there for the sake of our country.

You and I visited briefly yesterday about dam-breaching and hydro energy and its importance as a part again of that blend. Will you work to assure that the fish costs and I'm speaking now of the Bonneville Power Administration—that the fish costs are kept within the range contained in the Bonneville Power Administration's current fish funding agreement? Do you know of that?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, I do, Senator. I know there have been extensive discussions recently about extending that agreement for another 5 years.

Senator CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Is that what you're referring to?

Senator CRAIG. I am.

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, I do, and I would commit to doing that. Senator CRAIG. Now, when I speak of those costs and the range of costs, I would hope that would be, because of your past budget experience, in the lower range of costs. And I say that and I think it's important that we move ahead on those.

What are your feelings about the intent of the future of the power marketing administrations or agencies?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. The power marketing administrations are an important part of our national energy picture and Bonneville and the other power marketing administrations are ones that we need to continue to support. Bonneville in particular has been one that the administration has worked to support actively. The work in the Northwest, in the four States involved, has been admirable in trying to fashion a strategy for dealing both with the environmental challenges, the salmon recovery needs, as well as the power needs of the Northwest, and to deal with the changing nature of the electricity industry, the restructuring.

So I'd be very committed to working with them and with the delegation in maintaining that.

Senator CRAIG. Well, we've worked closely to try to bring about an extension of that agreement. It is my understanding there's been a bit of a slowdown occurring in the administration on it. I would think that would be an unwise position to have.

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Actually, Senator, I had meetings earlier this week on that with Ms. Johansen, the Administrator of Bonneville Power, with Betsy Moler, the Deputy now at Energy, and with others, and I expect within the next several days that that's going to be concluded and that that will move forward.

Senator CRAIG. We would hope that's the case. That's very important to the region. It isn't just my State of Idaho. It's Oregon and Washington and Montana and, of course, the life and the viability of the Bonneville Power Administration.

What are your feelings on the need to breach dams on the Columbia River and the Snake River systems to recover salmon runs? Mr. GLAUTHIER. Senator, I personally have not seen the science, the evidence, for why there is a need or whether there is an estabIlished need for that. I know it's an active discussion. There's a lot of work going on. At this point I think it would be a very serious step to take, so if we were to do so it would require a substantial body of evidence to really demonstrate that.

If I am in this position as Deputy Secretary, I would be very interested to review that in detail and help be part of a decisionmaking process.

Senator CRAIG. That may ultimately become something that you will have to be very knowledgeable in and understand the science of it. And I mean the science of it, not the political science of it, because there's a very real difference out there. The political science of it right now says breach the dams, on the part of some groups. The real science of it hasn't found an answer yet and is struggling with that and does not see that as a necessary option, at least to date.

So it is I suspect that if we were to take an active energy system like the Snake-Columbia system, that does what it is doing currently for the region economically and both in hydro production and now slack water transportation, and make a decision to breach that it's going to have to be very significant in the science side of it before that region can become convinced of that.

It is interesting that, while it's a popular idea with some of the editorial pages, the public hasn't tumbled yet. About 75 percent of the public in Idaho thinks it's a pretty stupid idea, and largely because they've not been convinced nor has it been proven, although it is a very popular piece of politics. And when you have a Secretary and an administration who likes to go out and talk about dam-breaching it adds to the drama just a bit. I hope that's not a position of this administration.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think I have any further questions, and if I do I'll submit them for the record. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We've been joined by Senator Bingaman. Senator Bingaman, are you on any schedule at all?

Senator BINGAMAN. Not really. I want to make a brief statement. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator BINGAMAN. Let me welcome all three nominees. I support all of them. I think they're excellent nominees and these are very important positions they're taking on.

Let me particularly say, with regard to T.J. Glauthier, that I have admired the work that he's done in the past at OMB. His knowledge about the issues that are going to be before him in the Department of Energy is extensive and I think that'll be a big help to the Department. So I very much support the nomination and I think the administration has found a person who can fit in and take over the important responsibility that Betsy Moler has had there. Betsy's done a tremendous job, as she does in every position, and I'm sure T.J. will as well.

I particularly appreciate the help T.J. gave us with the royalty fairness simplification bill in the last Congress. I think that was one area where we had some educating to do within the administration about the importance of the bill. It was a bill that was strongly supported in this committee by both Democrats and Republicans, and he was a big help in getting that done.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'll just stop with that, but say that I think it is important, if we can, that we move to confirm these nominations before we leave town. I think the Senate should do that and I hope very much we do.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman.

Mr. Glauthier, oftentimes we are frustrated at our level by not knowing whom the nameless, faceless policymakers are that make a determination of the ultimate disposition of what happens to much of our legislation up here. Looking over your resume, your bio, your position with OMB has been broad. You've handled climate change policy issues, the energy policy, renewable energy, nuclear programs, and even Native Americans and forests and other Federal lands management programs, national parks.

Let's see. Agriculture, handled the office of major policy developments, budget preparation, clearance of legislation, congressional testimony, EPA, NASA, Corps of Engineers-lots and lots of things. There have been lots and lots of veto threats. "OMB" is Management and Budget, right?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, it is.

The CHAIRMAN. And we in the Congress I think are inclined to view your mandates to Congress on a budgetary aspect. But I'm just curious to know on some issues that we've had come to us recently relative to OMB's position that hardly cover budget items. You're familiar with the King Cove road issue out in Cold Bay and the realities that there's a proposal by a small Native community to provide 800 acres which would be added to the wilderness in return for about 7 acres so the road could go through an area that would be redesignated, not wilderness, but refuge. There are lots of roads in refuges.

It's my understanding that OMB issued a veto threat. Did you have any role in that?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. I had. Part of our responsibility is trying to clear positions for the administration on all pieces of legislation, so that,

whether it's an appropriations bill or some other bill, if a veto threat is made it has to come through our offices to be cleared and be sure that

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have veto power over a veto threat?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. We have to make sure at least that it has been looked at by the right people.

The CHAIRMAN. But anybody along the lines then can say, hey, ought to veto that, and you just sign off on it?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. No. It has to go up the line. Anything that contains a veto threat goes well beyond me up the chain to be sure that

The CHAIRMAN. So you don't make those calls?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Not personally.

The CHAIRMAN. There's no doubt in my mind that you ever did. I guess that's part of my point. So you, while part of the checkoff list and an important part, can you overrule those at your level? Mr. GLAUTHIER. No. All I can do is put together the points, the arguments for discussion, and facilitate the discussion of it on up the line.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your attitude towards the process that we go through here? We bring in witnesses and they present their particular point of view and then the administration comes in. We usually give the courtesy of the administration giving their testimony first, and I'm frustrated because in the last several months almost without exception before the administration has heard from the witnesses they simply come in and say: If this goes to the President, we're going to veto it.

So we're supposed to evaluate the merits of the issue on the testimony and you folks have made a policy decision irregardless of what testimony takes place. You're aware of that, are you not? Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, I am.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with that?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Well, generally when that sort of testimony comes forward we try to make sure that the witness explains what it is about the legislative proposal that would draw a veto recommendation, and also try to differentiate whether it's a veto recommendation that comes from the senior advisers to the President, whether it comes from a particular Department.

But the key is to explain what it is about the proposal that is so objectionable, so that part of the testimony is directed to what would be needed to fix the particular problem.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want you to pass on to those that you're still dealing with in your current area that I'm not very happy with that policy, because we think that some pretty good testimony comes before members of Congress as a consequence of this process, and the administration has not necessarily had an opportunity in all cases to avail itself of that detailed testimony, but more or less makes an internal decision.

Not only is it poor policy; I think it's poor politics. And I think the next time I hold a hearing here and we have another situation where the administration, given the courtesy of the first witness, threatens a veto, why, we're just simply going to hold the administration's position until the witnesses have been heard from, and then we'll hear from the administration.

Do you give advice to the White House on statements of administration policy?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you follow the issues after that?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your advice on King Cove, R.S. 2477, the management of the Tongass National Forest, university lands, ANILCA, helicopters in the wilderness under the traditional use, Yucca Mountain, nuclear waste, grazing legislation, mining legislation? The Hoonah-Kake land exchange was also vetoed. Really, you know, here's two little Native communities in the middle of nowhere doing a little land exchange-veto threat. That went through your office.

Mr. GLAUTHIER. What we've done on those is try to

The CHAIRMAN. This veto threat, that's what you've done with them.

Mr. GLAUTHIER [continuing]. Get the views from the agencies and the appropriate offices and to be sure that those are looked at on up the chain. If the concerns are so strong, as in the case of the King Cove road, where some parts of the administration felt that putting a road across the wilderness area that way

The CHAIRMAN. That is of course you see, there's no intent to put a road across the wilderness area. There's a proposal to add 800 acres to the wilderness, take 7 acres out of the wilderness, put it in the refuge, and put the road through.

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Yes. The land exchange would make that then no longer part of the wilderness area.

The CHAIRMAN. It would add 800 acres to the wilderness area. Mr. GLAUTHIER. The reason for the veto threat was that the agencies and offices who were weighing in on it felt so strongly about it that they wanted to convey that recommendation. What we did was

The CHAIRMAN. In spite of the fact that 11 people have lost their lives in med-evacs out of there as a consequence of 7 acres, that didn't ring a bell with anybody, did it?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. Well, actually we brought the Coast Guard in and we talked to the Coast Guard about how they could improve the med-evac services and what could be done to deal with the substance. We've looked for alternatives.

The CHAIRMAN. You know that the Coast Guard lost a helicopter and there were six lives lost in a med-evac out there, and the helicopters cannot operate where there's turbulence within the mountain areas and that's the problem. They can do it out at sea. You know where the nearest helicopter is? 300 miles away in Kodiak. Mr. GLAUTHIER. About 3 hours away or so, yes.

What we have urged the agencies to do is look for alternatives. The CHAIRMAN. There aren't any. There is an alternative and it's the exchange.

Mr. GLAUTHIER. There are some other ideas, too, about some sort of a causeway or other options.

The CHAIRMAN. The causeway has as much environmental exposure as this little road. What is a causeway but a road?

Mr. GLAUTHIER. I think it may actually have worse effects, according to some.