<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:78075.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-324
NOMINATIONS OF THE 107th CONGRESS,
FIRST SESSION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
MAY 17, 2001: LINDA FISHER, to be Deputy Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency; JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, to be Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency; STEPHEN JOHNSON, to
be Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances, Environmental
Protection Agency; and JAMES CONNAUGHTON, to the Council on
Environmental Quality
JULY 25, 2001: DAVID A. SAMPSON, to be Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development, Department of Commerce; ROBERT FABRICANT, to be General
Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency; GEORGE TRACY MEHAN III, to be
Assistant Administrator for Water, Environmental Protection Agency;
JUDITH ELIZABETH AYRES, to be Assistant Administrator for International
Activities, Environmental Protection Agency; DONALD R. SCHREGARDUS, to
be Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
Environmental Protection Agency
SEPTEMBER 21, 2001: BRIG. GEN. EDWIN J. ARNOLD, to the Mississippi
River Commission; BRIG. GEN. CARL A. STROCK, to the Mississippi River
Commission; NILS J. DIAZ, to be Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; PATRICK HAYES JOHNSON, to be Federal Cochairperson, Delta
Regional Authority; HAROLD CRAIG MANSON, to be Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Department of the Interior; MARIANNE LAMONT
HORINKO, to be Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Environmental Protection Agency; PAUL MICHAEL PARKER, to be
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and MARY E. PETERS, to
be Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Department of
Transportation
OCTOBER 17, 2001: WILLIAM W. BAXTER, to the Tennessee Valley Authority;
KIMBERLY TERESE NELSON, to be Assistant Administrator for Environmental
Information, Environmental Protection Agency; and STEVEN A. WILLIAMS,
to be Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-075 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress\1\
first session: january 25-june 6, 2001
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ranking Democratic Member
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Dave Conover, Republican Staff Director
Eric Washburn, Democratic Staff Director
----------
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
first session: july 10-december 20, 2001
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director
\1\Note: During the first session of the 107th Congress, the
committee roster appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 25, 2001.
On June 6, 2001, the majority of the Senate changed from
Republican to Democrat when Senator James M. Jeffords, of
Vermont, changed party affiliation from Republican to
Independent. Senator Harry Reid, of Nevada, assumed the
chairmanship of the committee. On July 10, 2001, Senator
Jeffords was appointed as chairman of the committee by the
Democratic Leader.
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 17, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 27
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 8
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 8
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 21
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 6
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 4
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 1
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 26
WITNESSES
Connaughton, James, Nominated to be a Member of the Council on
Environmental Quality.......................................... 14
Committee questionnaire...................................... 104
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 114
Senator Reid............................................. 115
Fisher, Linda, Nominated to be Deputy Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 9
Committee questionnaire...................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 41
Senator Reid............................................. 38
Senator Voinovich........................................ 40
Senator Wyden............................................ 43
Holmstead, Jeffrey, Nominated to be Assistant Administrator,
Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency... 11
Committee questionnaire...................................... 45
Letters, Comments on PM standards............................ 72
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 69
Senator Clinton.......................................... 70
Senator Corzine.......................................... 71
Senator Lieberman........................................ 69
Senator Reid............................................. 56
Senator Smith............................................ 66
Senator Voinovich........................................ 67
Statement, Testimony before House committee on air quality
standards.................................................. 61
Johnson, Stephen, Nominated to be Assistant Administrator, Office
of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency........... 13
Committee questionnaire...................................... 83
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 100
Senator Clinton.......................................... 102
Senator Reid............................................. 98
Senator Smith............................................ 96
Senators Smith/Reid...................................... 95
Senator Wyden............................................ 101
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement, nomination of Stephen Johnson, Senator Mikulski....... 2
------
JULY 25, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 120
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 125
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 123
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 117
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 120
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 122
WITNESSES
Ayres, Judith Elizabeth, Nominated to be Assistant Administrator
for the Office of International Activities, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 131
Committee questionnaire...................................... 179
Prepared statement........................................... 177
Fabricant, Robert, Nominated to be General Counsel, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 127
Committee questionnaire...................................... 149
Prepared statement........................................... 148
Frost, Hon. Martin, U.S. Representative from the State of Texas.. 118
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. 117
Mehan, George Tracy, III, Nominated to be Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency....... 128
Committee questionnaire...................................... 159
Prepared statement........................................... 157
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 176
Senator Smith............................................ 175
Senator Voinovich........................................ 177
Sampson, David A., Nominated to be Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development, Department of Commerce.................119, 125
Committee questionnaire...................................... 141
Prepared statement........................................... 138
Responses to additional questions from Senator Smith......... 146
Schregardus, Donald R., Nominated to be Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 135
Committee questionnaire...................................... 191
Prepared statement........................................... 189
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 198
Senator Chafee........................................... 201
Senator Corzine.......................................... 201
------
SEPTEMBER 21, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 205
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 222
WITNESSES
Arnold, Brigadier General Edwin J., Nominated to be a Member and
President of the Mississippi River Commission.................. 208
Committee questionnaire...................................... 230
Prepared statement........................................... 228
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 206
Diaz, Nils J., Nominated to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission..................................................... 209
Committee questionnaire...................................... 239
Prepared statement........................................... 237
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Corzine.......................................... 268
Senator Reid............................................. 270
Horinko, Marianne Lamont, Nominated to be Assistant
Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 216
Committee questionnaire...................................... 301
Prepared statement........................................... 299
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Bond............................................. 315
Senator Boxer............................................ 318
Senator Clinton.......................................... 320
Senator Corzine.......................................... 319
Senator Jeffords......................................... 311
Senator Smith............................................ 313
Johnson, Patrick Hayes, Nominated to be Federal Cochairperson,
Delta Regional Authority....................................... 209
Committee questionnaire...................................... 274
Prepared statement........................................... 272
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords...... 288
Manson, Harold Craig, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary for
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Department of the Interior.......... 214
Committee questionnaire...................................... 322
Prepared statement........................................... 320
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 333
Senator Boxer............................................ 334
Senator Jeffords......................................... 331
Senator Smith............................................ 334
Parker, Paul Michael, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, Department of the Army................... 218
Committee questionnaire...................................... 338
Prepared statement........................................... 337
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 346
Senator Boxer............................................ 349
Senator Clinton.......................................... 352
Senator Corzine.......................................... 351
Senator Daschle.......................................... 352
Senator Graham........................................... 348
Senator Smith............................................ 344
Senator Wyden............................................ 347
Peters, Mary E., Nominated to be Administrator of the Federal
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation........... 219
Committee questionnaire...................................... 355
Letter, Representative Bob Stump............................. 354
Prepared statement........................................... 352
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 363
Senator Lieberman........................................ 366
Strock, Brigadier General Carl A., Nominated to be a Member of
the Mississippi River Commission............................... 210
Committee questionnaire...................................... 291
Prepared statement........................................... 289
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, nomination of Mary Peters, Rep. Bob Stump................ 354
Statements:
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche Lambert, U.S. Senator from the State of
Arkansas................................................... 227
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.... 226
------
OCTOBER 17, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 367
WITNESSES
Baxter, William W., Nominated to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority.................... 368
Committee questionnaire...................................... 384
Prepared statement........................................... 382
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Bunning.......................................... 390
Senator Jeffords......................................... 389
Senator Wyden............................................ 392
Nelson, Kimberly Terese, Nominated to be Assistant Administrator,
Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 371
Committee questionnaire...................................... 395
Prepared statement........................................... 392
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Bond............................................. 405
Senator Smith............................................ 403
Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas......... 373
Thompson, Hon. Fred, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.... 367
Williams, Steven A., Nominated to be Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.............. 374
Committee questionnaire...................................... 408
Prepared statement........................................... 406
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 419
Senator Boxer............................................ 419
Senator Chafee........................................... 418
Senator Lieberman........................................ 423
Senator Smith............................................ 417
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Frist, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee....... 381
NOMINATIONS OF THE 107th CONGRESS,
FIRST SESSION
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
628, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Bob Smith (chairman of the
committee) presiding.
CONSIDERATION OF THE NOMINATIONS OF LINDA FISHER, JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD,
STEPHEN JOHNSON, AND JAMES CONNAUGHTON
Present: Senators Smith, Reid, Inhofe, Carper, Bond and
Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. The nomination hearing will come to order.
I would say good morning to the witnesses and our apologies
for being late but the Senate had other ideas for us this
morning as we had votes on the Senate floor.
I'm going to give each of you an opportunity in just a
moment to introduce your families who are here but first, by
way of brief introduction for each of you, the purpose today is
consider all four of your nominations for various positions at
EPA--Linda Fisher, as Deputy Administrator of the EPA; Jeffrey
Holmstead for the position of Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation; Stephen Johnson to serve as Assistant
Administrator for Toxic Substances; and finally Jim
Connaughton, nominated to be a member of the Council on
Environmental Quality. I'd like to thank them for joining us
here today and for their willingness to meet with as many
Senators and their staffs as possible since the President sent
us their names. They are all very well qualified and I can say
from my meetings with them, they are also quality individuals
with quality families who we will meet here in a moment.
The Office of Government Ethics has certified that all four
of these nominees' financial disclosure forms indicate that
they are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest.
Linda Fisher, as President Bush's nominee, is no stranger
to the Agency. She has served in various positions in both the
Reagan and Bush Administrations and while there, Ms. Fisher was
awarded the EPA Award for Sustained Outstanding Contributions
to International Environmental Protection in 1991 and the EPA
Outstanding Service Award in 1984.
After leaving EPA, she joined the private sector working
for Monsanto, a company widely recognized for forward thinking
on environmental matters. She most recently held the title of
Vice President for Government Affairs at Monsanto.
She holds a BA from Miami University, an MBA from George
Washington and earned her law degree from the Ohio State
University.
Jeffrey Holmstead, the nominee to be the new EPA Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation also served
in the first Bush Administration in the White House Counsel's
Office. In his position as Assistant Counsel Mr. Holmstead's
primary focus was environmental law, most recently working on
the implementation of the Clean Air Act. He also worked with
the Reactivity Research Working Group and has been very
involved in their efforts exploring new and more effective
approaches for controlling ground level ozone.
Mr. Holmstead holds a BA and an AA from Brigham Young, as
well as a law degree from Yale.
Stephen Johnson has been nominated to serve as EPA's
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxics. He has 25 years of direct experience
with the issues facing the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances. He joined EPA in 1979 in the position of
pathologist in that same office. Most recently he has served as
Acting Assistant Administrator in that office.
For his service, he has received numerous annual
performance awards, Special Act Award, 1991; Meritorious
Presidential Rank Award, 1997; and has been nominated to
receive the Distinguished Presidential Rank Award.
Mr. Johnson earned a BA from Taylor University and a BS
from George Washington.
I would ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for
Mr. Johnson from Senator Mikulski be entered in the record at
this time.
[The information referred to follows:]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510, May 17, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senators Smith and Reid: I regret that I could not be there in
person today to introduce Stephen Johnson, and I hope you will share
this letter with the members of your committee as they consider Mr.
Johnson's nomination.
As you know, Mr. Johnson has been nominated to serve as EPA's
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances. He is currently acting in this position, where he has
the important responsibility of implementing our nation's pesticide,
toxic substance, and pollution prevention laws.
Mr. Johnson is a lifelong resident of Maryland, and he has worked
in public service for over 20 years. In his many years of service to
EPA, he has held positions of increasing responsibility and earned
several awards of distinction. His dedication and service to EPA
demonstrates his commitment to upholding the Agency's critical mission.
I believe that Mr. Johnson's nomination represents a unique
accomplishment for a career civil servant, and I hope that the
committee will give him every appropriate consideration.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski,
United States Senator.
Senator Smith. Finally, James Connaughton has been
nominated to be a member of the President's Council for
Environmental Quality. Mr. Connaughton has been a partner in
the Environmental law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood since
1991. He has spent his career working on a variety of
environmental issues including compliance, environmental
management, legislative issues and damage assessment. He has
substantial experience with handling ecological risk and
natural resource damage assessment and is knowledgeable in the
implementation of local, State and Federal laws pertaining to
environmental risk assessment.
Before joining Sidley Austin, Mr. Connaughton clerked for
the Honorable Marvin Aspen, U.S. District Court, Illinois.
He received his undergraduate degree from Yale and his law
degree from Northwestern.
Welcome to all of you.
Before I turn to Senator Reid and other members for opening
statements, I would ask each of you at this time if you have
family members here to please feel free to introduce them. We
will start with you, Ms. Fisher.
Ms. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the fact we can go ahead and introduce the
children first. They have all pledged to perfect behavior
throughout the hearing. We will keep our fingers crossed.
Senator Smith. That may not be true with the Senators.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Fisher. Let me first introduce my two children who are
joining me today, my son, Keenan, 7 years old and a first
grader at St. Patrick. As you can tell from his build, he is a
hockey player and likes baseball and basketball. Next to him is
my daughter, Kelly. Kelly is a kindergartener at St. Patrick's
and a 6-year-old. She likes gymnastics and soccer.
Senator Smith. Mr. Holmstead?
Mr. Holmstead. I am delighted to be able to introduce my
children as well. I am afraid we're running short on granola
bars so I don't know how long they'll last before they need to
excuse themselves.
Let me first introduce my wife, Lisa Holmstead who is a
full-time mother of our four children. Our oldest is Emily, who
is 11 and a fifth grader at the Rachel Carson Elementary School
in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Her nickname is the reading machine.
Next is my 8-year-old Eric. He's a second grader at the Rachel
Carson Elementary School. He has an orange cast on his foot as
a result of a biking accident but he's hobbling around pretty
well. Next is my 5-year-old daughter Elizabeth, who is in
kindergarten and who loves to have breakfast with her dad.
Finally is my 2-year-old son, Eli who is very happy to be here.
He's being held by my mother, his grandmother, Mellie Holmstead
and my father who is seated next to her, Kay Holmstead. Both of
them are visiting for this event from Bolder, Colorado.
Senator Smith. Nice to have you here.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to introduce my family as well. My wife, Debbie,
is with me today and our three children and our son-in-law. Our
youngest daughter is Allison. She's a freshman at Taylor
University in Indiana and our son, Matthew, who is a junior at
Taylor University. Their final exams are next week, so they
really enjoyed the opportunity to get out of class for a day to
join us here.
Senator Smith. Would you have been here if it had been next
week?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. And our oldest daughter, Kerry and our son-in-
law, Jeremy, are with us today as well.
It's also my pleasure--and I'm not sure how unusual or
routine this is--but my mother-in-law and father-in-law are
here today. I'd like to introduce my father-in-law, John Jones
and my mother-in-law, June Jones.
For the record, I would like to note that believe I am in
good standing as a son-in-law, at least as of this morning.
Senator Smith. Mr. Connaughton?
Mr. Connaughton. Mr. Chairman, first, I'll introduce my
wife, Susanna Connaughton, and our two children, Spencer, who
is nine and a third grader at Sidwell Friends School; and
Grace, who is six and she's at the Norwood School.
Also with me are my parents, Jim and Monica Connaughton.
You should know my parents came to this country shortly before
I was born from Ireland, so I know this is a special moment for
them.
Also here is my mother-in-law, Stacey Bolten. I'm also in
good standing with her. She lives next door to us so I'd better
be.
My sister, Eileen Hart, is here with my nephew, T.J., my
niece, Tara, and my other nephew, Michael.
Not here in person, but here in spirit are my sister,
Bernadette; my brother, Paul; my brother, John; their spouses
and an additional ten nieces and nephews. There also is a whole
crowd back in Ireland who are very eager to see the report of
this hearing.
Senator Smith. Welcome to all of you. It's nice to have you
here. It's nice to see you here to support your family member
to have the honor of being nominated for a position in
government. A lot of us feel it is honorable service and in
spite of what you read, there are a lot of fantastic people who
serve and make great sacrifices to serve in government.
Senator Reid?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mikulski has asked us to enter into the record a
very nice letter that she wrote on your behalf, Mr. Johnson,
culminating with ``I believe Mr. Johnson's nomination
represents a unique accomplishment for a career civil servant.
I hope the committee will give him every appropriate
consideration.''
I would ask permission that my full statement be made a
part of the record.
Senator Smith. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing this morning. I
know the Administration, and in particular, Administrator Whitman, are
anxious to get their people in place to help with the important issues
ahead.
As many of you know, I have sent a letter to the President and
Administrator Whitman informing them that I intend to hold
Administration nominations until the radiation standard for Yucca
Mountain, including the groundwater standard, is published in the
Federal Register.
The proposed Yucca Mountain Repository would be located
approximately 90 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada's largest and expanding
city. In addition to being home to more than 1.3 million Nevadans, Las
Vegas and its neighboring communities draw more than 30 million
visitors each year. Contamination of groundwater or the surrounding
environment from radiation would create an unacceptable human health
risk and would threaten the tourism and recreation-based economy, which
provides jobs and important tax revenue to Nevada and its communities.
The NRC must determine whether Yucca Mountain will meet radiation
release standards established by the EPA under authority granted by the
1992 Energy Policy Act. The Act requires EPA to set the standards based
on, and consistent with, the findings and recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences' ``Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain
Standards'' report. EPA not only considered the report but also public
comments received on the report from public hearings as well as
additional written comments. EPA also considered previous applicable
regulations such as the generic standards for radioactive wastes used
at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico.
EPA held public hearings in Nevada and Washington, DC. in October
1999 and had a 90-day comment period in late 1999.
Although the EPA submitted a final rule to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in late January 2001, the standards have not been
published.
I am concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
Department of Energy are attempting to weaken the provisions of the EPA
standards through the interagency review. The DOE and NRC are legally
responsible for site recommendation and licensing respectively, NOT
radiation standards.
There is a clear separation of authority. Through their actions,
the DOE and NRC may give the impression that they are seeking to
establish limits they believe Yucca would satisfy. This would undermine
the public's confidence in the objective, scientific nature of the site
recommendation and standard setting processes and set a worrisome
precedent for EPA's ability to conduct its statutory responsibilities
using sound science.
This standard is not only important to the citizen's of my State of
Nevada, it is important for all of us because, under the law, EPA--the
Agency responsible for protecting our environment--should be allowed to
do just that--protect the environment.
The chairman and I have talked and, at this time, I will not object
to reporting nominees from the Environment and Public Works Committee.
I have also talked to Administrator Whitman. I have agreed to
support the nomination of Ms. Fisher, who is nominated to be
Administrator Whitman's Deputy, because the Administrator agrees with
me and has assured me that she will do everything she can to get the
EPA standard for Yucca Mountain published.
However, until the standard for Yucca Mountain that represents the
best judgment of the EPA--not the NRC or DOE--is published in the
Federal Register, I will hold other Administration nominees from moving
out of the Senate.
I would like to thank Mr. Holmstead for responding to questions I
had before this hearing and would like to ask unanimous consent that
the questions and his responses appear in the hearing record at the
appropriate place.
We also have some additional information that we have requested Mr.
Holmstead to supply to the committee and hope that we can get that
information soon and review it expeditiously.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the
nominees here today.
Senator Reid. I want to say to the nominees we have had an
ongoing battle the past several months with setting groundwater
standards at Yucca Mountain, the site of the proposed
repository for nuclear wastes. I have had a number of
conversations with the Administrator, Governor Whitman, and I
last week made an announcement that we as Democrats wouldn't
show up at this hearing but I received a call from Governor
Whitman indicating that she was unable to do her work because
she is understaffed and she needed somebody to help her. As a
result of that, we are going to move very quickly on Ms. Fisher
and hold up the other three until the groundwater standards are
issued. Governor Whitman indicated she could do that.
I say for your families, this is what government politics I
guess is all about. There's nothing wrong with it except I'm
concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Department of Energy and some in the Administration are trying
to weaken the provisions of the EPA standards through the
interagency review. The DOE and NRC are legally responsible for
site recommendation and licensing respectively, not setting
radiation standards.
This is so important that we have even had a vote on a
matter in relation to this on the Senate floor. It was vetoed
by the President. We had enough votes to sustain the
President's veto, so this is a matter of some concern.
I'm confident that Governor Whitman will move this along
quickly. In my last conversation with her, I told her I'd just
done an interview where I said nice things about her and she
said, ``That's going to get me in more trouble.'' So I think
I'll say some real bad things about her today and maybe that
will help her with getting some things done.
I am impressed with the qualifications of each of the
individuals here. I especially appreciate Mr. Holmstead. We had
some questions and he had to grant a waiver so that we could
get some of this information. It appears none of it is going to
be of any consequence but it is something we needed to do to
look at these records. We appreciate your cooperation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your punctuality in holding
this hearing. As you know, we had two votes on the education
bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education bill today and we
are moving now onto the tax bill. I am responsible for helping
to manage that, so I will have to depart, recognizing this
hearing is important. We are going to do everything we can to
move this along with the cooperation of Linda Fisher and
Governor Whitman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Reid.
For the witnesses and their families' benefit, it is the
action of the Senate unfortunately that there are so many
things going on and members do come in and out. Sometimes we
have two or three committee meetings at the same time. Don't
ask why that happens because I don't know but it does and we
haven't been able to figure out how to be two places at the
same time.
Senator Inhofe?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll say to the families who are here today that it's
extraordinary that we have a lovefest like this. It isn't
always the case, it's just that we have such exceptional
people. I would repeat everything good and you and I thank all
of you for taking the time to come by and visit personally.
Over the last few years, I've had several serious concerns,
including an increase in the volume of the cost of regulations
and the diminishing returns caused by regulators chasing
smaller and smaller risks at greater and greater costs to
businesses and families.
I'm going to mention about four areas and if you will just
take some notes and either address these areas in your opening
statement or when you respond to questions, or for the record
at a future time, maybe when you get back. I would like to have
your opinions in all these areas.
The first is transparency. Too often the EPA's regulatory
system is slow, sloppy, secretive and they have not done things
out in the open. I'd like to make sure we have the opportunity
to have the entire public be able to know what's going on, what
regulations are out there, what rules are being suggested, and
have everyone be heard.
Second is cost of benefit. I think it's time to reframe the
debate on environmental regulation by focusing on making
smarter decisions to maximize benefits, minimize costs and save
more lives. There was a Harvard study not long ago that came to
the conclusion that roughly 60,000 lives are lost each year due
to the current regulatory system, chiefly because billions of
dollars are squandered on eliminating negligible and
nonexistent risk while failing to protect the public. I would
like to have you take the time to look at this study--we'll be
glad to supply it to you from our office--and I'd like to get
the response of each of you to that.
Sound science, at our Tuesday budget hearing, I was very
encouraged by Administrator Whitman's comments on sound
science. She said, ``The environmental policy should always be
based on the soundest information available.'' I was also
encouraged by her comments regarding the need to realize that
``science and public policy proceed along fundamentally
different lines. We will continue to use the best available
science and scientific analysis to aid the development of
environmental policies.'' Too often we have seen politics,
particularly in the previous Administration, used to support
the policies as opposed to sound science.
The third general area is regulation through litigation and
guidance. The prior Administration bypassed the safeguards of
the Administrative Procedure Act which requires Federal
agencies to provide opportunities for informed and meaningful
public participation. They used such things as interim final
rules, guidance documents and policy statements which did not
really require any kind of public comment. We want this out in
the public, we want to know ourselves but more important we
want the public to be aware.
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Appalachian Power v.
EPA actually had to strike down an abusive EPA guidance
document. The court found, EPA was creating broad new authority
through the guidance document; the EPA did intend the guidance
document to have a binding effect; and the guidance was
illegally issued outside of the APA rulemaking process. Such
activities must and will be stopped. The new source review is a
good example of this. I'd like to have you directly address
that in one of the three forms that I suggested.
The debate over regulation is not about whether a better
quality of life, cleaner air or safety and more productive
workplaces is desirable; it's about how regulations affect the
quality of life. Are Americans better off or worse off when
government regulators intervene?
With that, if you could give me the response either for the
record or during the course of this hearing, I'd appreciate it.
I feel very fortunate in having four people of your quality and
qualifications serving with us.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Carper?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you and welcome to each of you and
your families and supporters.
About 3 months ago, we sat here in this room and Governor
Whitman sat at that table and we had the opportunity to
question her with respect to her nomination as Director of EPA.
She and I were Governors of neighboring States for the last 7
years and I have a great deal of respect for her. I said, ``You
have a reputation of always surrounding yourself with excellent
people in New Jersey, not only in environmental areas but in
other areas as well.'' I said, I have no concern if left to
your own devices as Director of EPA, you'll surround yourself
with excellent people.
My fear which I expressed at the time was that she would
not be given free rein in terms of choosing the people who
surrounded her. I understand today half the people at this
table are people she chose--I'm kidding. I understand she's
chosen you all. I have it on good word that you're capable,
able, hardworking people.
Ms. Fisher, have you ever been to Ohio?
Ms. Fisher. I was raised there.
Senator Carper. Ever been to Ohio State?
Ms. Fisher. Yes.
Senator Carper. A couple members of this committee went to
law school and I was an undergraduate at Ohio State. I welcome
you and hear very good things about you.
Mr. Johnson, people sing your praises, and Mr. Holmstead,
and Mr. Connaughton, I here mostly good things about you. I
will be honest, a couple of concerns have been raised and I
hope during the course of the hearing we will be able to
address any of those.
Having been through a confirmation hearing of my own, I
have some idea what you have to go through to be considered. It
is an awful process. You're to be commended for being here. We
look forward to this hearing and getting to know each of you.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Senator Bond?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. The chairman mentioned there are conflicting
hearings. I may be holding a record this morning. There are
four hearings I'm supposed to attend this morning but it is
very important for me to be able to say on the record how
impressed I am with the four nominees in front of us. Some of
them I have worked with personally over many years and know
them well. Others I know them by reputation, by the record they
have achieved, by their level of service. I've enjoyed the
opportunity to get to know them.
We have very tough tasks set out for you and I'll have some
questions. I want to be here for one round of the questions.
I do want to say I'm sorry Senator Reid left. I do
appreciate the fact that we could move forward with this
hearing. I hope we can move very quickly to confirm all four.
As Senator Carper, I have some experience as Governor and it's
one thing to be able to appoint the top policy head of a
department. That's great, you get all these policy
pronouncements but without the people to make it work, you
can't get things done that I think Senator Reid and our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to see done.
This is a critical time in this Administration because many
of the departments are sitting there with one head or one plus
one and the frogs in their pocket are the we that they talk
about. There is such a disconnect when you don't have the folks
with responsibility to move the programs forward.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can resolve the questions Senator
Reid has quickly. I think it can be done more quickly if we had
a full complement in EPA.
Thank you for holding the hearing. I appreciate the fact
that Senator Reid allowed us to go forward with this hearing.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Bond.
Let me make one quick announcement. A lot of members do
have busy schedules but I'm going to stick to 5 minutes on the
first round and then we'll see where we are after that, so we
can get through as quickly as possible.
To each of the witnesses, we'll have a light here for a 5-
minute summary. Your complete statement will be made a part of
the record. If you could summarize in 5 minutes, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Fisher, we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF LINDA J. FISHER, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Fisher. Thank you.
I'm delighted that President Bush and Governor Whitman have
invited me to become a member of their environmental team. They
are committed to continuing the tradition of a strong
environmental program that has marked this country's history
for the past 30 years. I am committed to that as well.
The American people are overwhelmingly supportive of a
strong government role in protecting the environment. The EPA
has met that role with remarkable energy and enthusiasm in the
past and I am confident that EPA will continue to serve the
American public with distinction under the Bush Administration.
The American public trusts EPA to protect their families,
their communities and the land and water and air of our
country. I understand the enormous responsibilities that come
with that trust and I will do everything in my power to be sure
those responsibilities are met.
As you know, I did serve for 10 years in several management
positions at EPA. During that time, I witnessed firsthand the
personal dedication of EPA's career staff. I saw the importance
of bringing the best science to bear on the difficult policy
questions the Agency faces and I saw the critical need for
sound, economic analysis to support those decisions.
I also learned the importance of a strong enforcement
program and how important that is to the credibility of the
entire Agency's programs. I had the opportunity to work in the
spirit of collegiality with Members of Congress and I grew to
understand the importance of involving all of the public in our
decisionmaking. This experience at EPA, and what I took away
from it, will help me meet the challenges that face every
Deputy Administrator.
At the same time, I understand that the environmental
issues we face have evolved since I was here at EPA. Numerous,
widely dispersed and small sources of pollution in some places
are the cause of the most serious environmental problems. New
problems like climate change have moved to center stage. For
these new and emerging problems, the Agency's traditional
regulatory approaches which were critical to past success might
not be the most efficient or effective. For these reasons, EPA
is changing too. The Agency today is trying a broader array of
regulatory tools to meet new environmental challenges.
For example, over the past decade, economic incentives have
proliferated at the Federal, State and local level. Under
Governor Whitman's leadership, EPA will expand the use of these
tools to help solve ongoing and emerging environmental
problems.
For the last several years, EPA has also undertaken a
number of pilot projects to test innovative ways of
streamlining the regulatory system. State governments as well
have tried these new tools. President Bush and Governor Whitman
want to shape EPA to meet the environmental challenges of the
21st Century by integrating into the Agency's entire structure
and culture new ideas for protecting the environment.
Therefore, over the new few months, we are going to take a
hard look at these bold experiments, try to identify what has
worked well, what hasn't worked and understand why. Then in
partnership with the States, try to integrate where appropriate
the most effective new ideas into our programs.
Part of our incentive for incorporating innovation has been
driven by the business community itself. More than ever before
in our history businesses are recognizing their role as
stewards of the environment. They recognize that corporate
environmental stewardship and social responsibility are
increasingly essential if they are to operate successfully in
the global marketplace. More and more businesses today are
forming voluntary partnerships not just with EPA and State
regulatory agencies, but also with the public through
nongovernmental organizations.
Encouraging and strengthening these partnerships with the
States, with the public and with the private sector to achieve
more voluntary environmental protection will be one of my goals
at EPA. If tomorrow's EPA is to fully and successfully
incorporate the kinds of innovations I have mentioned today--
innovations like economic incentives and streamlined and
flexible and regulatory systems, then tomorrow's EPA employees
will need different kinds of training and skills.
Yet today EPA faces very serious human resource issues. For
example, about 50 percent of our senior management may actually
retire from the Agency over the next 5 years. Developing a
diverse and well-trained work force that is prepared to meet
new environmental challenges will be one of the most difficult
challenges I think Governor Whitman's team is going to face. It
is a problem I will be personally involved with resolving.
I would like to say a word about global environment. More
and more U.S. companies are operating in the global
marketplace. My experience in the private sector working to
forge global acceptance of bioengineered agricultural products
showed me the global dynamic of many environmental issues we
face today. Problems that are as broad as climate change or as
focused as pesticide residues are important to virtually all
nations and they affect everyone on earth.
How this nation and other nations respond to the
environmental issues presented by worldwide economic growth and
expanded global trade will directly affect not just our
competitiveness but also our ability to protect our global
environment. Therefore, we must work in concert with other
governments if we are to attain our environmental and economic
goals.
During my tenure as EPA Deputy Administrator I will support
Governor Whitman as we join in partnerships with countries to
solve problems that affect the planet we all share.
Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you and
members of this committee as we move forward in the next 4
years. I will be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Holmstead?
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Holmstead. Thank you.
It is a great honor to be here today as the President's
nominee to be Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and
Radiation at EPA. I am pleased to be joined by my wife, my
children and my parents.
I sincerely hope that this committee and the full Senate
will see fit to confirm me because I am very eager to have the
chance to work with Governor Whitman as she starts her tenure
as the Administrator of EPA. I believe that with the support of
President Bush and this committee, I will be able to help
Governor Whitman make continued improvements in the quality of
our air, while at the same time making EPA's regulatory
programs less burdensome and more cost effective.
Growing up in Boulder, Colorado gave me a great
appreciation for the environment and the outdoors. Even so,
when I graduated from law school in 1987, I did not plan to
spend my career working on environmental problems. After a year
of practicing corporate law, I had the opportunity to serve in
the White House under President George Bush, Sr. where I spent
most of my time working on environmental issues. At the White
House, I soon found that working to find effective ways to
protect and improve the environment was more challenging and
rewarding than anything else I could imagine.
Ever since, I have focused my career on environmental
issues. It is indeed a great honor to be nominated by the
President to continue working on the issues of such great
interest to me personally and of such vital importance to all
of us.
I share Governor Whitman's commitment to protecting the
environment and her goal of leaving the environment cleaner
than she found it. I recognize that the job for which I am
seeking confirmation will present many challenges and many
difficult issues, but I honestly believe that we can overcome
the challenges and resolve the issues. My optimism comes from
the belief that we all share the goals of using good science to
identify our environmental goals and developing good policies
to achieve those goals cost effectively.
Starting from these shared goals, I hope to have the chance
to work with all the stakeholders that care about environmental
issues to increase cooperation and decrease the acrimony that
has occasionally gone along with these issues in the past. I
think we can take pride in the progress that all of us--States,
industry, advocacy groups, Congress and EPA--have made in
cleaning our nation's air over the last three decades.
Since 1970, when Congress first passed the Clean Air Act,
we have come a long way in advancing both the science and the
art of environmental protection. Both EPA and the States have
become more effective at designing programs to achieve our
common goals. As Linda mentioned, we are using more market-
based strategies and other flexible regulatory tools. More and
more, State and local agencies and environmental groups are
working with businesses to solve environmental problems as
partners. EPA has been both a partner and often a leader in
these efforts.
I believe that EPA can and should do even more. Just
because a program gets results does not mean that it cannot be
improved. An effort to make a program simpler and more flexible
should not be viewed as an excuse to make it less effective. If
EPA is open to new possibilities, if we actively seek the best
ideas from everyone--our partners at the State and local level,
our stakeholders and our staff--we can develop better
approaches for protecting and improving our nation's air. If we
base these approaches on the best available science and if we
focus on results and allow people to find innovative ways to
achieve those results, we can continue to improve the quality
of our air and make our regulatory programs less burdensome and
more cost effective.
If I am confirmed, I will look forward to working with you
and your staffs to achieve these goals. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
Mr. Johnson?
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN JOHNSON, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC
SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
I am honored and privileged to have the opportunity here
before you this morning and to be nominated to serve as the
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances. As a career civil servant for
the last 20 years, it is a privilege and distinct honor to have
the support of President Bush and Governor Whitman.
During my brief remarks this morning, I will mention
several key priorities and principles that I will pursue if
confirmed. Then I'd like to close with a few personal comments.
Given my private sector and EPA experience, I understand
the importance of practical and reasonable solutions to today's
environmental challenges. If confirmed, I will foster an
atmosphere that is accessible and responsive, I will also
aggressively promote decisions based in sound science, strive
to foster consensus-based and common sense approaches as we
advance public health and environmental protection.
As you know, our office's major responsibilities include
pesticide and industrial chemical regulation, food safety and
pollution prevention. These areas pose enormous challenges as
well as opportunities. Important work remains.
Let me mention a few key priorities. Our regulatory
oversight of pesticides, industrial chemicals, biotechnology,
food safety and pollution prevention will continue to require
sustained and dedicated attention. Making sure our decisions
our based on sound science will require expertise within the
EPA and active participation of the scientific community,
including extensive peer review.
I hope to build on the solid progress under the Food
Quality Protection Act to reassess the older pesticides, while
assuring an abundant food supply.
My office has the additional challenge of addressing the
cutting edge issues of biotechnology. I will help ensure that
the United States regulatory system is based in science and
maintains consumer confidence. This is a key focus.
On the subject of industrial chemicals, voluntary
partnerships particularly the high production volume testing
program and the children's testing program, will be key
priorities as well.
I am committed to strengthening the many voluntary
initiatives and to advance pollution prevention, initiatives
such as integrated pest management as well as partnerships with
many organizations like the American Hospital Association.
I'd like to briefly mention my operating philosophy and
principles I will follow if confirmed as Assistant
Administrator. These include advancing the best science to
support or regulatory decisions; open and regular communication
with all our stakeholders--in other words, transparency;
building strong and trusting relationships with all
stakeholders; working to quickly address the concerns of our
stakeholders; establishing partnerships; strengthening those
partnerships with our other Federal agencies, particularly the
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration,
our States and local communities; and within OPPTS to promote
professionalism, dedication and diversity within the staff; and
truly build human capital that we can all be proud of.
I'd like to close with a few personal observations. My
father is a World War II veteran and worked in the Department
of the Navy for more than 30 years. He has a strong commitment
to public service. Growing up, I always admired his government
service. His commitment to public service has helped me
appreciate the importance of reaching for excellence in
government. I am proud to have the opportunity to continue in
that tradition.
I've been fortunate to be able to devote the majority of my
career to public service and environmental protection. For me,
serving in the government with a goal to help all Americans and
their families has been a distinct privilege. When I reflect on
the past and consider the future, I know that I will face
difficult, complex and serious issues. Having a foundation in
sound science, exercising common sense, utilizing cost benefit
analysis, coupled with extensive stakeholder participation, I
believe will result in quality decisions.
As Assistant Administrator, I hope to achieve national
goals with a keen sense of the needs and realities of our
individual families and communities. I hope that my service
will reflect positively on my children, their everyday choices
and the community that each of us lives in.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
look forward to working with you on a bipartisan basis to
advance public health and environmental protection. I would be
glad to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Speaking of a bipartisan basis, it is important to point
out that you've served Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton
thus far in your work and now coming back again to work with
another President, so that is true bipartisanship.
Mr. Connaughton?
STATEMENT OF JAMES CONNAUGHTON, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is an honor to appear before you and the other
distinguished members of this committee.
I am both grateful and honored that President Bush has
nominated me to be a member of the Council on Environmental
Quality and if confirmed, to appoint me as chairman.
Being a lawyer, I'm going to start with the law and it is
an important one, NEPA. When Congress enacted NEPA over 30
years ago and created the Council on Environmental Quality,
Congress declared it is the continuing policy of the Federal
Government to create and maintain conditions under which man
and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the
social, economic and other requirements of present and future
generations.
Senator John Chafee, one of the greatest environmental
statesmen of the Senate, described this quite simply as a tall
order but an important one. I agree and fully embrace NEPA's
broad policy objective. It is why I joined the environmental
profession and have focused my practice on promoting compliance
and innovative approaches to environmental protection.
Environmental stewardship is a family matter in my house.
My daughter, Grace, 6 years old, constantly amazes my wife,
Susanna and I, with her passion for nature and for
conservation. She has wonderful little stickers all over the
house telling us to turn off the water and turn off the lights.
Every day my son, Spencer, comes into the room first thing
in the morning and says, ``OK, Daddy, give me an environmental
issue,'' and then he earnestly and confidently discusses how to
address it. Their passion and concern reinforces my own
commitment to environmental stewardship. For that reason, I
look forward with great enthusiasm to leading CEQ in its core
mission, first, to provide objective, well informed and
realistic advice to the President, his advisors and the Cabinet
about the future direction of environmental police. Second, to
coordinate the implementation of environmental programs and
resolve policy disputes among Federal agencies, State, tribal
and local government and private citizens. Third, to promote a
balanced decisionmaking process that accounts for the views of
all affected parties.
With respect to these three core tasks, I'd like to
highlight three aspects of my background that are particularly
relevant to this nomination. The first is the strength of my
commitment to serving the public interest. I have an
exceptional role model, my father. With the unflagging support
of my mother, he spent over 30 years as a clinical professor of
child psychiatry working to improve the lot of children and
families, often in the most desperate of circumstances, in
Baltimore's inner city. I will count myself fortunate if I can
bring to government service even a fraction of the decency and
dedication to the public good that my father demonstrated every
day of his career.
Second, I am a strong proponent of searching for and
harnessing the power of consensus in meeting shared
environmental goals. I have had the privilege of traveling the
world helping to create international standards that promote
effective, resulted oriented environmental management and
responsible environmental communication. These standards
reflect the consensus of hundreds of dedicated professionals
from industry, environmental organizations, consumer
organizations, government and academia from the U.S. and 50
other countries.
Tens of thousands of organizations today are quietly and
efficiently adopting these standards to improve environmental
performance. Remarkably, participation in this process and
implementation of these standards is entirely voluntary. I have
seen firsthand the dramatic results that such voluntary, market
driven action can achieve. It is faster, it is cheaper and it
works.
Third, I am a forceful advocate and practitioner of
environment stewardship where it matters most, at the source. I
have spent much of the last 4 years traveling the country
helping countries implement what is known as ISO 14001, the
international environmental management system standard from
Oklahoma City, OK to Ocala, FL, from Detroit, MI to East
Liberty, OH, from Windfall, PA to Kingstree, SC, I have worked
with business managers and operators on the factory floor
showing them how to integrate environmental obligations into
their day to day operational procedures and their long term
strategic business planning.
Their efforts are predicated on three fundamental
commitments: compliance, prevention of pollution and continual
improvement. These hardworking people are the nation's front
line in environmental protection. We must do what we can to
capitalize on their energy, unleash their creativity and remove
obstacles to their success.
President Bush has encouraged Americans to join him in
renewing our commitment to protecting the environment and
leaving our children and grandchildren with a legacy of clean
water, clean air and natural beauty. Embarking on the twenty-
first century of environmental quality requires not only
reinforcement of what is working but also the zealous
application of new ideas and new methods.
If confirmed, I look forward to advancing NEPA's goal of
ensuring productive harmony between man and nature, to a
constructive dialog with Congress, with Federal, State, tribal
and local government agencies and most important, with the
public whose trust we all hold.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Let me start by asking two questions which we have to ask
as part of the committee responsibility. You can answer it
together. Are you willing at the request of any duly
constituted committee of the Congress to appear in front of it
as a witness if requested.
[All witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Senator Smith. The record will show all witnesses answered
yes.
Do you know of any matters which you may or may not have
thus far disclosed which might place you in conflict of
interest if you are confirmed in this position?
[All witnesses respond in the negative.]
Senator Smith. The record will show all witnesses answered
no.
If each of you could take about a minute and cite for me,
starting with you, Ms. Fisher, what you would see as your
greatest challenge as you come into that position? I'll give
you the parameters of where I would like to go. Many of you
have talked about the command control of the past which has
worked but I think we are now transitioning into a new role
where more and more businesses are becoming good environmental
partners. We're talking about good science now, talking about
cooperation as opposed to confrontation, market-based
initiatives. So I would say as you step into that role,
starting with you as the Deputy, what do you see as the
greatest challenge for you?
Ms. Fisher. First, we need to recognize that the
environmental problems we are going to face are going to need
different solutions and we will need to move the EPA staff, as
well as the regulated community, toward different kinds of
solutions. We are all comfortable with how we have done
business in the past and one of our biggest challenges is going
to be to learn to address problems differently and in different
ways than we have in the past, and to get comfortable with
those, although they look and feel different, that may get us a
lot of environmental protection.
Second, as I mentioned in my testimony, this issue of the
work force, the retirements that we face, identifying people
who are coming up through the ranks and reaching out beyond EPA
to find others to bring into the Agency that can serve in these
very critical positions, is probably the secondmost important
priority.
Third is streamlining, the traditional regulatory approach.
It has gotten us huge successes in the past as you mentioned,
but we are going to have to find ways to make that regulatory
system much more flexible, much more nimble if we're going to
be successful.
Senator Smith. Mr. Holmstead in your area of the air, we
now see a situation where energy production is a problem, yet
at the same time we do have air standards to meet. I might ask
you to comment on that particular part in terms of your
priority, how you feel about that, where you would go with that
issue?
Mr. Holmstead. I think there are a number of innovative,
flexible things that we can do to encourage more energy to come
on line sooner and to address the issues that face many of our
refineries in terms of the kinds of processes they are
currently required to undergo before they can make changes. I
think we can look for additional flexibility in terms of the
issue of boutique fuels, which to some extent is contributing
to the gas prices that we face. These issues are both
challenges and opportunities. I believe we can accomplish all
of those goals.
Stepping back and talking more broadly, I think the
greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity is to work with
all of you and your staff to fashion legislation to address
multiple pollutants from electric utilities. As you know, the
President and the Governor have made this issue a high priority
and, therefore, it becomes perhaps my highest priority.
There are a number of very cost effective opportunities to
reduce pollutants from electric utilities. Because of the way
the process has worked over the years, there's a number of
largely uncontrolled plants and I think using the kinds of
trading approaches, flexible approaches that have been
successful over the past 10 years, there is a great opportunity
for the Agency working together with you and others to achieve
some very significant reductions in that area.
Senator Smith. The same question for you, Mr. Johnson, in
the pesticide area?
Mr. Johnson. I think certainly the greatest challenges that
we face deal in some specific areas which I mentioned in my
testimony, including implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act and how we reassess these older pesticides,
making sure they meet today's standards and particularly are
protective of sensitive subpopulations such as children.
A statement Governor Whitman has used that I'd like to
refer to is that the mission of EPA has not changed in the Bush
Administration. The methods by which we accomplish that mission
may change. I think there are a number of opportunities as we
move forward both in implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act, as well as dealing with issues of industrial
chemicals, issues of biotechnology and others, that we do so in
a partnership way.
My program has some excellent experience with partnerships.
One we are heavily involved with now is the High Production
Volume Challenge Program, a partnership between the American
Chemistry Council, Environmental Defense and EPA, all working
together to address an issue where we have a lack of data on
some of these industrial chemicals. In a collaborative,
voluntary way we are getting that information. We have made the
information available to the public. So I think there are those
kinds of examples we need to build on.
Senator Smith. Mr. Connaughton, same question.
Mr. Connaughton. The challenge for CEQ is one that CEQ has
held for 30 years and that is bringing the Federal departments
together in a manner where national decisions can be made, in a
way that promotes our environmental goals but also now more
importantly than ever, also meets our social and economic
needs.
The issues that cut across Federal agencies often lead to a
pretty robust, extensive and unfortunately lengthy internal
Federal dialog before we begin to see action in the country. At
the same time, the process often does not give appropriate
weight to local input, local needs and the ability and trust
that I think we can now, 30 years after the beginning of the
modern environmental regulatory age, give to local and State
authorities to regain control of the direction in which they
want to take their communities.
Senator Smith. Senator Carper?
Senator Carper. Several of you in your statements mentioned
your parents. I see one or two in the audience who might
actually be your parents. Whether you were alluded to or not by
your children, particularly those of you who were cited as
wonderful role models in public service, I want to say thank
you and thank you for raising these children with the kind of
values that have led them to this hearing today and to their
nomination.
Mr. Connaughton, you spoke of your two children and I think
you mentioned you have a little girl who goes around putting up
stickers that say turn off the lights and turn off the water. I
have two boys, 11 and 12. When I arrived home last night, every
light in our house was on. What's her name?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connaughton. Her name is Grace and you don't want her
in your house because she will tell your boys, ``nature is
nature is nature,'' and she knows the connection.
Senator Carper. Grace, I want some of those stickers to
take home.
To the children and your spouses, we thank you for your
willingness to share your moms and dads and your spouses with
the people of our country.
Mr. Connaughton, you mentioned not only are you being
nominated to serve on the Council on Environmental Quality but
you might even be its chairman. We have heard some talk that
there may be a reorganizing of the Council on Environmental
Quality, some change in its composition, its role. Have you
heard anything along those lines and if so could you share what
discussions you've heard?
Mr. Connaughton. Actually, I'm not aware of any change in
composition in terms of the way CEQ has operated even
throughout the Clinton Administration. CEQ's mission is a
statutory one. Also its mission of interagency coordination and
advice to the President is a necessary one. It is my
understanding, based on conversations with the Administration
in preparing for this hearing, that it is also an intentional
one for the Administration. The idea is to continue to maintain
CEQ as an important center for communication and dispute
resolution within the Federal agencies and to ensure that the
President has close at hand substantive environmental policy
advisors who can help him and the Cabinet and his advisors in
the White House, and ensure that environmental considerations
are integrated into public policy decisionmaking.
Senator Carper. Ms. Fisher, during the last Administration,
those of us who live on the Delmarva Peninsula worked closely
with your predecessor and with Governor Whitman's predecessor
on the issue of water quality. I live in a State where there
are 300 chickens for every person and there are downstream
consequences for all those chickens. Historically our farmers
have used the chicken nutrients to fertilize our farm fields.
We face a situation today where we have about a third as much
farmland as we had in 1960 over which to spread the nutrients
and about three times as many chickens. The problem is we have
too much nutrients, too much phosphorous and are concerned
about runoff into waterways and ultimately into the Chesapeake
Bay.
I had a great opportunity to work with EPA over the last
couple of years where it said to States, we'll let you figure
out how to meet the standards. We want to set high standards,
cleanup our waterways, reduce runoff, but we'll work closely
with the States. I want you to know a little of the history of
that and ask you to comment philosophically on how you would be
inclined to come at it.
We find if you go to the folks closest to the problem
sometimes they have a pretty good idea how to fix it. I have
found that farmers, for the most part, are pretty good
conservationists. What we have tried to do in our State is to
empower them to come up with solutions. For example, we have
called for development of nutrient management plans for each of
our farmlands. We've not mandated it but have asked it to be a
voluntary activity. In one of our neighboring States, they made
it a mandatory activity.
In a year in my State, close to 100,000 acres of farmland
now have voluntary nutrient management plans. In our
neighboring State, I am told none. It says volumes about what
you can get done when you involve the people on the ground in
this case in addressing that. Would you give me your take on
that? By the way, Mike McCabe was the EPA official who worked
directly with us and very closely.
Ms. Fisher. I had lunch with him a few weeks ago as I was
embarking on this new opportunity at EPA to learn from his
experiences.
I think you have identified an area where many of the
agricultural pollution problems we face are not going to lend
themselves to the typical EPA approach of command and control
regulation. We have found in the past that working in
partnership with the States and the farm community can be very
helpful in identifying as you suggest the most efficient and
effective ways of protecting the environment. I think
particularly with sectors of the economy that aren't used to
environmental regulation, a cooperative approach and one closer
to the people frequently work a lot better.
I have not heard particularly what happened in Delaware but
I'll definitely look into it. I think what you described sounds
like the model for how we are going to have to deal with many
of our emerging problems.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
May I ask indulgence to ask a question on behalf of Senator
Reid? It's a yes or no question.
Senator Smith. All right.
Senator Carper. This is for Mr. Holmstead. In the pre-
hearing questions I think you responded to, Senator Reid asked
if you supported the revised national ambient air standard
quality for ozone and PM 2.5 as published in 1997? His question
is either a yes or no answer, do you?
Mr. Holmstead. The short answer is yes.
Senator Carper. That's a great answer.
Senator Smith. Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. As I listened to your opening statements of
the five concerns that I had, I think most of you covered most
of them. Just so we don't overlook them, would you mind
responding to each for the record. Mr. Johnson, I think you
covered all of them but I'd like to get it all down so we'll be
able to refer to it at a later date.
There is a chart here that we've put together. I have been
concerned that so much discussion has taken place during this
time of energy crisis as to what is causing the cost and the
shortages. A recent report entitled, ``The U.S. Downstream, the
EPA Takes Another Bite Out of America's Fuel Supply,'' by
Merrill Lynch concluded that EPA's clean air regulations ``will
clearly have the impact of reducing existing U.S. refinery
capacity.''
As we've gone through these hearings in the past few years
with the recognition that we are at nearly 100 percent refinery
capacity, it's very difficult to come to any conclusion other
than many of these regulations play a part in this. I would ask
a commitment of you folks that when you're promulgating rules
and talking about rules that you will consider the energy
ramifications those rules might provide.
For the record, they all nodded yes.
Mr. Holmstead. Senator, if I might add, I believe the
President's energy advisors have actually advised that he issue
an Executive Order that specifically requires us to consider
the energy impacts of any regulations we develop.
Senator Inhofe. There has another area that hasn't been
covered and one that I feel very strongly about. A statement
was attributed to Administrator Browner when she left office
saying ``At least I won't have to hear Inhofe's Jimmy Dunn
story anymore.'' Well, we are going to hear it one more time.
Back in 1994 or 1995, I can't remember which, I got a call
from a guy named Jimmy Dunn. I happen to know him very well and
have known him for many years. He is a third generation of Mill
Creek Lumber in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is a very competitive
industry. It was in 1994 because I was still in the House at
that time. He said, Inhofe, the EPA has just put me out of
business. I said, what did you do wrong? He said, I don't know
what I did wrong, I've been giving my used crankcase oil to the
same contractor for the last 10 years. He's a contractor
licensed by the Federal Government, by the County of Tulsa, by
the State of Oklahoma. They traced some of this to the Double
Eagle Superfund site and I got a letter from the EPA saying
they are going to fine me $5,000 a day. I said, fax the letter
to me. He faxed it and it's very carefully worded to inflict
terror on people.
I say this in a very serious vein because I spent 30 years
in the real world many times being abused by the bureaucracy
myself so I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a
bureaucracy that has no limits in terms of resources to expend
to go after someone. When you casually read this, you would
assume you would be fined that amount.
As it turned out, it didn't happen but I've often wondered
how many Jimmy Dunn's are out there that never wrote a letter
or made a phone call to a Member of Congress to someone who is
accountable to the public? You're going to have to talk to
people in your departments, people answering to you, that there
is going to be a new attitude in responding to the public and
recognition that we, the four of you and us at this table,
actually work for the public and keep in mind they are the ones
paying for all this fun. I'd like to ask you to make a
conscious effort to do that. If we do get letters, I won't be
shy about reading them in these public hearings.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Senator Clinton?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. I'm always relieved that there is only one
Jimmy Dunn story. I don't mind hearing it over and over.
Senator Inhofe. Oh, no, I've got a lot more.
[Laughter.]
Senator Clinton. As often as Senator Inhofe has told it, I
would imagine there would be a lot more stories he could add to
it. The point is very well taken. Obviously we are looking to
enforce our laws in a conscious manner and in a way that brings
people together around the goals we share, not to drive people
apart or inflict terror on anyone. We want to end up with a
cleaner environment for our children, especially as beautiful
children as are here today.
I think the objective that all of us on this committee
share is certainly one I heard echoed from each of you. I
commend you for being willing to take on the responsibilities
that each of you has signed up for and look forward to working
with you.
I had a couple of specific questions. The first are for Mr.
Holmstead. In response to questions with respect to the current
enforcement actions against certain power plants, you have
stated, and I agree 100 percent, that the EPA should set clear
standards and then vigorously enforce them.
I'm interested in your reaction to a recommendation that
appears in the energy policy document that the Administration
has issued today that the President direct the Attorney General
to review existing enforcement actions regarding new source
review to ensure the enforcement actions are consistent with
the Clean Air Act and its regulations.
You probably know New York has brought some of those
enforcement actions out of frustration. We are the recipient of
a lot of pollution from elsewhere and are looking for a way to
work with our neighbors in the Midwest to try to end that and
give them the support they need to be able to do that.
Given your new position, do you believe these enforcement
actions are consistent with the Clean Air Act and its
regulations?
Mr. Holmstead. I know that those enforcement actions have
been controversial and some companies have claimed there was
somehow a change in the criteria used. I have to say that never
was involved in any of those cases and I really don't know
exactly what the criteria are. I know that a lot of very smart
and conscientious people at the Agency believe those are fully
justified. I have no reason to question that.
I'm also aware of the President's recommendation that the
Department of Justice take a close look to make sure they are
consistent with the Clean Air Act and I will obviously be
supportive of that effort. I have no idea how this review may
come out, but I expect it will be completed fairly quickly.
Senator Clinton. I appreciate that and your personal
attention to it is very welcome.
Following up on that, acid rain has been a particular
problem in the northeast. It is something that affects the
chairman's State and my State and is a real challenge we are
trying to deal with but we can't do it in our States. There is
no way New Hampshire and New York can control the acid rain
because we don't generate it. The wind patterns obviously bring
it to us.
There is a very specific issue that I'm concerned about and
that is whether or not you support the NOx SIP Call and whether
you support a Federal requirement to make the NOx SIP Call
annual as opposed to only governing the 5-month ozone season.
Do you have any response to that?
Mr. Holmstead. I--and anyone I think who believes in cost-
effective regulations--believe that the NOx SIP Call is a very
effective way to reduce not only the problem of acid rain but
other problems as well. As you know, NOx is a significant
contributor to ground level ozone and to fine particulates and
other things. I have to say I have not thought a lot about
whether the NOx SIP Call should be an annual program.
The President and Governor Whitman, and others, have made
it clear that having a multi-pollutant bill is a high priority.
As you know NOx is only one of the casues of acid rain. The
primary cause is SO<INF>2</INF>. We recently entered the Acid
Rain Trading Program under Title 4, and it will be fully
implemented by the year 2010. So those emissions will continue
to decrease over the next 9 years. I think it's pretty clear
that we can and we should do more cost effectively; but under
our current Clean Air Act authority, we have no other mechanism
for getting additional SO<INF>2</INF> reductions.
So I look forward to working with you and others to develop
a multipollutant bill that would further address that issue.
Senator Clinton. I am so pleased to hear that. I think this
committee in a bipartisan way can produce a multipollutant bill
that would take care of NOx, SO<INF>2</INF> and mercury. We
obviously have disagreements about carbon dioxide but it
certainly would add to the ability of all of us from the
Federal and State perspective to be able to control the acid
rain problem.
I have a quick question for Mr. Connaughton. I thank you
for literally talking with me on the run yesterday. One thing I
haven't gotten used to is I set an appointment, then I have to
go vote, and run down the hall with a nominee running with me
to be able to have a conversation. I appreciate that.
Mr. Connaughton. I like dynamic conversations.
Senator Clinton. That was dynamic and I was impressed you
weren't winded.
I want to make clear for the record something you and I
talked about yesterday which you graciously provided in a
letter dated May 4 with respect to your previous representation
of General Electric. I want to be sure I understood that you
will recuse yourself, not just for one year but a full recusal
for the time of your service on decisions related to the Hudson
River PCB cleanup where General Electric is a responsible
party. Is that correct?
Mr. Connaughton. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Clinton. What about other matters in which GE is
involved or other previous clients? Will that similarly affect
your recusal policy?
Mr. Connaughton. In preparing for this hearing, I worked
very closely with the Office of Government Ethics. They
evaluated all the matters that I worked on and we prepared the
letter you saw on May 4. I think there were six or seven
particular matters where the full recusal was described. We
wanted to do that before this hearing so there would be no
question about that.
Then as we move forward, I have committed and will live up
to the ethics laws. CEQ typically doesn't get into the
particular details in these matters, so it would be very
unusual for any of those kinds of conflict scenarios to arise,
but certainly I'll be exercising appropriate prudence and an
abundance of prudence. It does not serve either the President
and the Federal Government nor outside stakeholders to create
appearances of conflict where it is not necessary. The goal is
to advance environmental policy.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Connaughton.
Senator Smith. Senator Bond?
Senator Bond. A few general comments. If anybody would like
some more Jimmy Dunn stories, we can provide them. Missouri is
full of them and don't think just because we don't take up the
time that they aren't there. We're happy to supply them at your
request.
Second, the discussions brought to mind one of the guiding
principles that Administrator Whitman has set forth and that is
to use sound science. Acid rain particularly floats my boat
because I was one who worked with Senator Byrd on the acid rain
trading system to cram through the acid rain provisions in the
Clean Air bill. It was done in a hurry to make sure that law
was in place prior to the completion of the multiyear, $1
billion NAPAP study, National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Project which determined that frankly all the cost and burdens
that were put forth in those particular provisions on clean
air, were excessive and perhaps much of the benefit could be
achieved by putting lime in 26 lakes in the northeast. Whether
the science has changed or not, I think the precedent that this
Congress adopted at the urging of the Administration and with
the leadership of some in Congress of moving prior to getting
the science is precisely the kind of effort we don't want to
see. We don't want EPA doing that and I hope you would help
rein us in prior to making similar precipitous moves in the
future.
There has been a lot of discussion about the National
Energy Policy and I guess since 10:45 a.m. has now come and the
President has officially released it, I was reading through the
recommendations. It looks like EPA has a big chunk of the pizza
pie that's come out. I was particularly interested, Mr.
Connaughton, in Chapter 3, the NEPD Group recommends the
President issue an Executive Order to rationalize permitting
for energy production in an environmentally sound manner by
directing Federal agencies to expedite permits and other
Federal actions necessary for energy-related project approvals
on a national basis.
An interagency task force is to be chaired by CEQ to ensure
Federal agencies responsible for permitting energy related
facilities are coordinating their efforts. I assume this
doesn't come as a surprise to you. Do you have any feelings at
this point as to the direction or the possible benefits in
terms of energy supply that might come from such a
rationalization?
Mr. Connaughton. I too recently learned. I have not yet
seen the policy but anyone reading the school newspaper we all
read knows that was coming.
I look forward to taking on that challenge. It is an
important one for our economy and at the same time, it is
important that we meet the goals of NEPA in ensuring that it's
done in an environmentally responsible way. To me this is
mainly a process issue; it is not an environmental issue, per
se, internally, but certainly externally getting new energy
supplies up and on line has an environmental dimension.
Generally, newer is cleaner. Getting our old infrastructure
replaced in an effective and timely way I think promotes not
just our economic good but also our environmental good.
In terms of the process, it's going to be daunting. There
are numerous Federal agencies with numerous responsibilities in
any of these kinds of initiatives. I am a very goal oriented
person. In the time I have spent running around the country and
other parts of the world with very large organizations, we have
had our greatest success when we defined a goal and then
reached consensus on process. I find that is a very effective
way of making things happen fast.
I'm hopeful with the authority provided under NEPA, and
with close cooperation of the folks internal to the Government
but as importantly external stakeholders, we can see real
results in terms of streamlining.
Senator Bond. I suggest once you have an opportunity to
review this document, you will be further daunted because CEQ
obviously is going to play an important role as it should as
will the Environmental Protection Agency.
I'd like to turn to Linda Fisher for another particular
area of great interest to me and that is infrastructure
development and maintenance. We think it is imperative for this
country, highways, runways, waterways, pipelines, power plants,
not just for convenience and economic growth but good highways
in Missouri mean saving lives. We kill people on inadequate
highways where we are not able to build highways.
Today, it can up to 8 to 10 years to go through the process
for a highway project, 10 to 15 years to build a runway for an
airport. I think that is unacceptable. We all want sound
environmental protections based on science and common sense. We
need to build, modernize and maintain our infrastructure
because, as Mr. Connaughton said, newer is usually safer. I
think EPA can do more to streamline and coordinate the efforts.
What recommendations would you have and how can EPA take
steps to ensure that the environmental goals and protections
mandated are observed but we can move these projects to get the
infrastructure we need?
Ms. Fisher. I think EPA has actually already started a
process with CEQ to look at the permitting issues raised or
presented by some of the infrastructure improvements and
expansions, particularly in the transportation sector. It's an
area that has been identified for the Agency and they have
already begun to see what they can do to make streamlining
changes.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Do you have any further questions, Senator
Bond? I'd be happy to yield.
Senator Bond. I appreciate your indulgence. I wanted to ask
a quick question to Mr. Johnson. I'm very impressed with your
record of service.
I would like your assessment on whether you feel the food
safety laws that you have, FDA has, and USDA has, provide
adequate authority and responsibility to understand and
consider and make approval or disapproval decisions on new
products produced with modern biotechnology?
Mr. Johnson. I believe the laws we have and the framework
the Government has, and certainly the role of the Department of
Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration and EPA, is a
sufficient regulatory framework to carry out our
responsibilities to ensure that this type of technology is
advanced, is promoted and at the same time that we can assure
complete public health and environmental protection.
Having said that, it is an area of rapidly evolving science
and it is one that there are new science issues that confront
us each and every day. So I believe it really calls on each of
us, both at EPA, USDA and FDA, to make sure we have a very
close, coordinated working relationship and to make sure that
while the laws are adequate, we need to make sure there is
close cooperation to ensure we are making the right decisions.
I think certainly we have taken a number of steps. In fact,
there is a senior Ag biotech advisory committee that is Cabinet
level. A number of the Secretaries, including Governor Whitman,
sit on it to oversee and help ensure we have that close
coordination.
Senator Bond. The process is working now though?
Mr. Johnson. So process is working now, correct.
Senator Bond. I can't leave without putting on my small
business hat to ask Linda Fisher if she's familiar with the
provisions of SUBRA, the Red Tape Reduction Act, which requires
that EPA convene panels to consider the impact on small
businesses and how the goals of a particular regulation can be
achieved with minimal impact on small businesses that might
otherwise be unnecessarily hindered without achieving any
greater environmental benefit. Are you familiar with that
process and do you agree to support it and ensure its terms are
met?
Ms. Fisher. Yes, Senator, I am familiar with it. It is one
of the laws passed since I left government. I have been briefed
on it and do intend to support it and ensure it is properly
implemented at EPA.
Senator Bond. As the author of the law, we'd be happy to
help you. We have some people who are available if you have any
questions about it. We look forward to working with all of you
on that.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Bond.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here. I must
say your parenting is obviously done very well. All these young
children and we haven't had any eruptions or problems at all. I
complement you on that.
I want to make a couple of closing announcements. I do have
a business meeting scheduled for next Wednesday, the 23d at
9:30 a.m. to move your nominations from the committee to the
floor. Largely because of the impending Memorial Day recess, I
want to report these nominees at that meeting.
It is my understanding that all the nominees have made
themselves available to each of the members and their staffs
and at least one has already received and responded to some 30
or so written questions. Any additional written questions that
may be offered would be due by noon tomorrow and if those
questions are received, they will be provided to you. If you
can get those back to us in writing by noon Tuesday, the 22d,
we will be ready to report you out the following day on
Wednesday.
That is all we have at this time. Thank you to each one of
you for being here.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the State of
Ohio
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this nomination
hearing so quickly. I think it is important for us to move these
nominees and confirm them.
I know a lot of members have a number of issues with different
programs at the Agency, and right now we only have one Senate confirmed
person over at the EPA and that is Administrator Whitman. Many of the
issues that members are raising would best be addressed through the
oversight process so I believe we should confirm these people as
quickly as possible and hold as many Oversight Hearings as we need. It
makes no sense to continue to beat up on an agency with only one
nominee in place.
I am thoroughly impressed with the caliber of today's nominees.
Linda Fisher, Deputy Administrator of EPA--I have been impressed
with Ms. Fisher for a number of years, in fact I tried to get her to
come back to Ohio to be the head of the Ohio EPA when I was Governor.
With her experience at the EPA I believe she will make a great Deputy.
Jeff Holmstead, Assistant Administrator for Air--I met with Mr.
Holmstead yesterday and I was impressed with his experience. He worked
on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in the first Bush White House
so I know that he understands the issues and has a lot to contribute.
Steve Johnson, Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances--Mr. Johnson is a career EPA employee and I think
it's great that the President nominated him for this position. As I
have stated before I am very concerned about the Human Capital Crisis
in the Federal work force. Nominating a career employee sends a very
positive message that excellence in government is rewarded. That's a
positive message we need to send to attract high caliber recruits into
the work force.
Jim Connaughton, Member of the Council for Environmental Quality--
Mr. Connaughton brings excellent credentials including his voluntary
work with the ISO-14,000 process which are the international
environmental compliance standards. In that capacity I understand he
has worked with over 60 different business sectors, environmental
groups and international countries, reaching consensus. This is exactly
the type of job skill needed at CEQ. You need someone who can problem
solve with multiple parties.
I think the President has made four excellent choices for these
important positions. The major issue which I would like you all to
address is how we deal with the Human Capital Crisis in the Federal
work force. I would like suggestions from you on how we can better
attract top candidates and an understanding of how the problem affects
the EPA.
Ms. Fisher, specifically I would like you to address an issue with
the SES (Senior Executive Service) employees. We have a lot of talented
and dedicated employees who have been in their jobs for a number of
years. I know the SES program recommends that senior managers rotate
their jobs, I believe every 5 years. I would like you to look into this
and see when it was last done. It is a good way of relieving job
boredom and it provides managers with an opportunity to spread their
skills across the Agency and creates a more vibrant workplace.
I look forward to working with all of you and I hope we can get you
confirmed as quickly as possible. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the nominees and
their families for being here today.
As I'm sure you know, the Environmental Protection Agency is very
important to my State. And, for the most part, I think the EPA has done
a good job partnering with the people in Montana. I'd like to continue
that trend with the present administration. My No. 1 concern, of
course, is the health and safety of the people of my State and the
nation. And that concern goes hand in hand with protecting our
environment.
Our industrial history has left Montana with a legacy of
contamination, from acid mine drainage to asbestos. The clean-up of
Montana's sites has been a tremendous financial and technological
challenge, costing hundreds of millions of dollars. We've had some
terrible tragedies as well. Hundreds of people in Libby, Montana have
become sick or died because of their exposure to asbestos. This
asbestos originated at a vermiculite mine nearby. Workers brought the
dust home on their clothes, mine waste was used at the local high
school track. Per capita, more people have been diagnosed with asbestos
related diseases in Libby than anywhere else in the country. In short,
Libby, Montana has become one of the worst industrial disasters in the
history of the nation.
It's my top priority to ensure the residents of Libby get the help
they need to make their homes and community safe for them, their
children and their grandchildren. And, to make sure that this type of
disaster never happens again in this country. I want the EPA to be able
to effectively protect people from the hazards of asbestos, and other
toxic substances.
EPA is currently conducting assessments of the indoor air levels of
asbestos in Libby homes, many of which have asbestos insulation that
originated at the Libby mine. I encourage EPA to thoroughly investigate
the potential danger posed by this type of asbestos insulation in
homes. Libby residents, and people from across the country who have
homes insulated with same type of asbestos, are understandably
concerned that their insulation may be increasing their exposure to
harmful asbestos fibers. I will be very interested to see the results
of EPA's assessments, and to discuss further with the Agency the
potential impacts of those results, both on public health and on
possible removal efforts.
I know not all of the nominees here today are involved in this
issue, but I wanted to stress its importance to me and my State, and
the nation. I will be interested to hear your views on this subject,
and others, such as pesticide harmonization and natural resource
damages. I thank you for your time, and I look forward to working with
all of you if you are confirmed.
__________
Statement of Linda Fisher, Nominee for Deputy Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this committee. I have
the honor and pleasure to appear before you today as the nominee to be
EPA's new Deputy Administrator. I am delighted that President Bush and
Governor Whitman have invited me to become a member of their
environmental team. I believe I am uniquely qualified to support that
team, and contribute to the environmental and human health improvements
that are a major goal of the Bush Administration.
President Bush and Governor Whitman are committed to continuing the
tradition of strong environmental progress that has marked this
country's history for the past 30 years. I am committed to it as well.
The American people are overwhelmingly supportive of a strong
government role in protecting the environment. The Environmental
Protection Agency has met that role with remarkable energy and
enthusiasm in the past, and I am confident EPA will continue to serve
the American people with distinction under the Bush Administration. The
American public trust EPA to protect their families, communities, and
the land, air, and water where they live. I understand the enormous
responsibility that comes with that trust, and I will do everything in
my power to make sure those responsibilities are met.
To this end, I believe my previous experience at EPA will be of
great benefit. As you know, for 10 years I served in several management
positions at EPA. During that time I witnessed first-hand the personal
dedication of EPA's career staff. I saw the importance of bringing the
best possible science to bear on difficult policy questions. I saw the
critical need for solid economic analysis as a bedrock support for
environmental decisions. I learned the importance of a strong
enforcement program to the credibility of the Agency's programs. I had
the opportunity to work in a spirit of collegiality with Members of
Congress in order to attain our shared environmental goals. I grew to
understand the importance of involving the public in our
decisionmaking. This experience at EPA--and what I learned from it--
will help me meet the challenges that face every EPA Deputy
Administrator, and will help me provide more capable service to
Governor Whitman, President Bush, and most important to the American
people.
At the same time, I understand that environmental issues have
evolved a great deal since I left EPA. Numerous, widely dispersed, and
smaller sources of pollution are in some places the cause of the most
serious environmental problems. New problems, like climate change, have
moved to center stage. For these new and emerging problems, the
Agency's traditional regulatory approaches, so critical to bringing
about past successes, may not be the most efficient or effective
response.
For these reasons EPA is changing, too. The Agency today is testing
a broader array of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to meet new
environmental challenges. For example, over the past decade
environment-related economic incentives have proliferated at the
Federal, State, and local levels. Whether they take the form of
environmental fees and charges, deposit-refund systems, marketable
permits, information systems, or other voluntary programs, economic
incentives have shown that they can make a unique, effective, and low-
cost contribution to the nation's environmental efforts. Under Governor
Whitman's leadership, EPA will expand the use of economic incentives to
help solve both ongoing and emerging environmental problems.
For the last several years EPA also has undertaken a number of
pilot projects to test innovative ways of streamlining the regulatory
system, making it more flexible, and cutting red tape. State
governments as well in New Jersey, for example have taken the lead in
testing promising new ways of controlling pollution from point sources.
President Bush and Governor Whitman want to shape EPA to meet the
environmental challenges of the 21st century by integrating into the
Agency's whole structure and culture the best new ideas for protecting
the environment. Therefore, over the next few months we're going to
take a hard look at these bold experiments, and identify what works,
what doesn't work, and why. And then in partnership with the States, we
will integrate, where appropriate, the most effective ideas throughout
our programs.
Part of our incentive for incorporating innovation throughout EPA
is being driven by the business community, which like EPA is also
changing to meet the challenges of the future. More than ever before in
our history, many businesses are recognizing their role as stewards of
the environment. They recognize that corporate environmental
stewardship and social responsibility are increasingly essential if
they are to operate successfully in the global market place. It is
important to attracting the best employees, it strengthens their
relationships with their communities, and it builds a more positive
relationship with their customers and shareholders. More and more
businesses today are forming voluntary partnerships not only with EPA
and State regulatory agencies, but also with non-governmental
organizations, here and abroad. Encouraging and strengthening those
partnerships with the public, with the States and with the private
sector to achieve more voluntary action, will be one of my goals at
EPA.
If tomorrow's EPA is to fully and successfully incorporate the
kinds of innovations I've mentioned today innovations like economic
incentives, streamlined and flexible regulatory systems, and voluntary
partnerships , then tomorrow's EPA employees will need different kinds
of skills and training. Yet EPA today is facing serious human resource
issues. For example, 50 percent of our senior leadership may retire
within the next 5 years. Developing a diverse, well-trained work force
that is well prepared to meet new environmental challenges with a
broader array of creative, more flexible tools, may be one of the most
difficult problems facing our new management team at EPA, and one that
I intend to be personally involved with.
I would like to say a final word about the global environment. More
and more, US companies are operating in the global market place. My
experience in the private sector, working to forge global acceptance of
bioengineered agricultural products, showed me the global dynamic of
many environmental issues today. Problems as broad as climate change
and as focused as pesticide residues are important to virtually all
nations, and they affect virtually everyone on earth. How this nation
and other nations respond to the environmental issues presented by
worldwide economic growth and expanded global trade will directly
affect not only our competitiveness, but also the quality of our global
environment.
Therefore, we must work in concert with other governments if we are
to attain our mutual environmental and economic goals. During my term
as EPA Deputy Administrator I will support Governor Whitman and the
rest of EPA as we join in partnership with countries to solve problems
that affect this precious planet that we all share.
Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses by Linda Fisher to Additional Questions from Senator Reid
Question 1. Little or nothing is known about the health effects of
exposure to tens of thousands of chemicals commonly used in this
country; and the standards and procedures for restricting chemicals
under the Toxics Substances Control Act, particularly as interpreted by
the court in the asbestos decision, are so cumbersome that TSCA is not
an effective tool for protecting the public from what can be very
dangerous and even deadly substances. The more I learn about cancer
clusters and disease outbreaks with suspected environmental links, the
more I am convinced that we have to place a higher priority on
understanding the health impacts of chemicals and environmental
contaminants, and on protecting the public from exposure to substances
that may adversely affect their health.
As Deputy Administrator, will these be priority issues for you, and
will you commit to working with me, and this committee, toward
improvements in these areas?
Response. Yes, I am committed to ensuring that EPA has the ability
to effectively regulate industrial chemicals in this country and to
protect public health and the environment. Although TSCA was passed 25
years ago this year and has not been reauthorized since that time, it
does still provide the Agency with the authority necessary to assess
new chemicals coming into the marketplace, gather information on
chemicals currently produced and circulated in commerce, identify and
require further testing on chemicals that may pose risks, and control
production and commercial distribution of those chemicals which may
pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. In addition,
TSCA requires chemical companies to provide the Agency with all
available scientific information regarding health and safety concerns
on the chemicals that they produce.
Since the 1970's, EPA has implemented TSCA to ensure that new
chemicals are screened prior to their introduction into the
marketplace. Currently, EPA is reviewing about 1200 new chemical
submissions a year. Last year, 700 were permitted to be sold in the
U.S. To address the most widely used chemicals in this country, EPA
launched the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge program in 1998,
which asked the U.S. chemical industry to voluntarily provide health
and safety data to the public on the almost 2800 HPV chemicals. In
addition, the Agency established a voluntary initiative to gather
critical data on those chemicals that may pose a risk to children.
You may also be aware that the Agency has significant efforts
underway to reduce chemical emissions, to prevent pollution from the
outset, to design and provide safer chemicals from the start, and to
work with the chemical industry to find safer chemical substitutes.
The Agency appreciates the interest that this committee has in our
ability to ensure that chemicals are used safely in this country, and
we stand ready to work with you in addressing some of the challenges in
implementing TSCA.
Question 2a. I am very concerned about the proposal to cut 270
positions from the EPA enforcement staff nationwide. I think that the
States play a vital role in enforcement, but the States and Federal
Governments play complementary roles and should both be sufficiently
funded.
Do you think that there has been unnecessary money devoted to
Federal enforcement at EPA? If so, which cases or programs do you feel
should not have been taken?
Response. I believe that the FY02 budget request has sufficient
resources to sustain a vigorous environmental monitoring and
enforcement program while providing the States with additional
resources to carry out delegated enforcement and monitoring activities.
This will allow the Federal program to focus on those aspects of
environmental enforcement which the States cannot do, or in which they
need assistance, e.g., non-delegated programs, addressing significant
violations by large, multi-State industries, or acting as backup for
State and tribal enforcement efforts.
Question 2b. Can you guarantee that the States can replace all the
Federal actions which would have been taken but for the funding shift?
We are not identifying specific actions that must be conducted by
the States with the grant funds. However, as the Administrator has
said, the States are closer to the environmental problems and will be
able to use the grant funding effectively to enforce environmental laws
at the local level and ensure a consistent national level of
environmental enforcement.
Question 2c. Do you plan on requiring the States to use the money
for strictly enforcement actions? How do you plan to measure the
success of the State enforcement programs?
Response. The States will have flexibility to use the grants for
enforcement and enforcement related activities, including compliance
monitoring and compliance assistance for the regulated community.
States will be held accountable for their results through reporting
mechanisms established in the grant guidance and agreements that will
be developed during the coming months, with input from States, Tribes,
and other stakeholders.
Question 3. In light of the cuts in positions in your Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at EPA, what activities do you
think might be affected? Are there certain programs or initiatives that
you are planning on protecting from these cuts? What will you do if
there is a case, for example, in a small State with a small legal
office, that the State does not have the resources to address?
Response. The enforcement programs affected by the workyear
reduction will be identified as we work with the regional offices and
States during development of the fiscal year 2002 work plans. EPA will
continue to have a vital role in shaping and carrying out the nation's
environmental compliance and enforcement program. The Agency will
continue to take actions where there are significant violations at
companies with facilities in more than one State, where States are not
yet delegated programs, and where the Federal Government is the
statutory lead. EPA will also backup States where they cannot get the
job done.
Question 4. Soon industry will begin screening tests of high
production volume chemicals, under the voluntary program worked out by
EPA, Environmental Defense and the chemical industry. This is long
overdue. I think the public would be shocked to learn how little is
known about the potential dangers of chemicals before they are allowed
into commerce. My question is about the need for action beyond the HPV
program. Simply comparing requirements of TSCA with those under the
Food Quality Protection Act raises some seemingly obvious deficiencies
in TSCA. Has EPA prioritized chemicals for testing, so that those that,
based on current information, pose the greatest threat to health or
high risk of exposure will promptly be subject to analyses beyond HPV
screening? What about chemicals that new biomonitoring data reveals are
pervasive in the general population?
Response. As you know, the HPV Challenge Program, launched in
October 1998, will provide EPA and the public with Internet access to
screening level health and environmental effects data on over 2,100
widely used chemicals. The data made publicly available through this
collaborative effort will allow a diverse set of stakeholders,
including Federal, State and local governments and other interested
parties to set priorities for the collection of additional information.
This program will help the Agency prioritize higher order testing and
exposure analyses to ensure that risk assessment and management
activities focus on chemicals which may present the greatest risks. In
addition, EPA has established a Master Testing List (MTL) which serves
as an agenda to prioritize industrial chemical testing needs of EPA and
other Federal agencies. EPA also participates in the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECDs) HPV Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS) Program, which screens HPV chemicals to
evaluate the need for followup action from a global perspective. The
OECD process provides a platform to harmonize chemical testing protocol
and laboratory testing, as well as opportunities for international
collaboration to share costs.
In December, 2000, EPA launched a pilot of the Voluntary Children's
Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) that specifically used
biomonitoring data as a key parameter to identify and focus on
chemicals to which children would have the highest likelihood of
exposure. EPA selected chemicals for the first tier pilot which were
found to be present according to available biomonitoring data to be
present in the human body (adipose tissue/blood/breast milk and breath)
and found by existing environmental data to be present in a person's
environment( in food, drinking water, breast milk, air). The VCCEP was
developed through an extensive stakeholder involvement process. The
program is designed to ensure that health effects and exposure data are
made available in a phased (tiered) process. Development of such data
will allow EPA and others to evaluate potential health risks to
children associated with certain chemical exposures so that appropriate
mitigation measures may be taken. EPA will use available biomonitoring
data in setting chemical risk assessment priorities.
Question 5. Shouldn't the Congress and EPA be taking a hard look at
issues under TSCA beyond HPV testing, such as (1) whether there's a
need to more effectively set priorities to ensure prompt focus on
additional testing of chemicals that pose the greatest risk of exposure
or adverse health effects, and (2) whether the current standard and
mechanisms under TSCA for testing and restricting chemicals promote
timely and effective action necessary to ensure basic protections to
public health?
Response. Yes, if it is the will of Congress, the Agency stands
ready to assist this committee on efforts to address improvements to
TSCA.
______
Responses by Linda Fisher to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. As part of my concern for the Human Capital Crisis
currently affecting the Federal work force and EPA in particular I am
interested in the general work assignments of the Senior Executive
Service (SES) employees. We have a lot of talented and dedicated
employees who have been in their jobs for a number of years. I know the
SES program recommends that senior managers rotate their jobs on a
regular basis. I would like a commitment from you to look into this and
see when it was last done. It is a good way of relieving job boredom
and it provides managers with an opportunity to spread their skills
across the Agency and creates a more vibrant workplace.
Response. I too am greatly concerned by the serious Human Capital
Crisis facing the Federal work force and EPA in particular. I
appreciate your thoughtful remarks on this matter and am pleased to
respond to your question regarding EPA's efforts to rotate members of
the Senior Executive Service (SES).
You have my commitment that I will explore this issue further, but
I would like to provide some preliminary information so that I am
timely in my response to your request. As part of its overall Human
Capital Strategy, EPA has been closely examining its work force,
including issues such as recruitment, retention, retraining, and
retirement. This strategy focuses on the issues facing our most junior
positions as well as our those in our distinguished SES corps. We
recognize that we must maintain an energized unit of senior leaders
with a wide and diverse spectrum of skills and experiences to see us
through the challenges that lie ahead.
Accordingly, we have begun to consider options for an SES
rotational program that incorporates the best features of previous
efforts to formally rotate members of EPA's SES corps. We will also
integrate new and innovative approaches that will enhance previous
efforts. SES rotations will carefully assess individual and
organizational needs so that the right opportunities are created and
lasting benefits are realized. This proposal will be vetted among the
senior management team in the coming weeks and finalized accordingly.
While I agree that more should and can be done to broaden the
experiences of our SES and to revitalize its members, our current SES
corps is quite mobile. Please consider the following data:
approximately 59 percent of our SES employees have been in their
positions for less than 5 years; 25 percent of our SES employees have
changed positions within the last 5 years; 10 percent of SES employees
at EPA are reassigned to different positions each year; and of these
reassignments, approximately 30 percent are across program or regional
office lines and 10 percent are geographic.
______
Responses of Linda Fisher to Additional Questions from Senator Baucus
Question 1. Do I have your commitment that you will maintain
momentum on the issues which continue to challenge the EPA in Libby,
Montana, including maintaining funding, until we have a clean bill of
health for the people in Libby, MT? I can't tell you right now exactly
what we'll need, because the situation there is fluid, but I want to
know that you are committed to doing what's necessary to protect the
people in Libby from further contamination, as quickly as possible.
Response. EPA has committed substantial resources for Libby, MT,
cleanup activities and is committed to sustained funding for further
cleanup action. Cleanup activities involve various commercial
properties (Export Plant and Screening Plant), some residential areas,
and the school areas (including the high school track, middle and
elementary school play areas). In fiscal year 2000, EPA expended $12 M
for cleanup. Thus far in fiscal year 2001, EPA has committed $18M to
clean up. EPA is now engaged in sampling scenarios for 15-25 homes to
determine the full extent of contamination in the Libby community. In
late fiscal year 2001, EPA will ascertain the need for further cleanup
activity at residential properties.
Question 2. Ms. Fisher, you've testified in front of this committee
before on asbestos related issues. As I'm sure you know, EPA tried to
tighten regulations on asbestos, but ultimately failed. There is
overwhelming scientific evidence and information on the hazards of
asbestos, and despite that, EPA is still not allowed to more
effectively protect people from it. EPA needs the necessary tools to
more effectively regulate dangerous substances such as asbestos. I want
to know if you, Ms. Fisher, are committed to working with me and the
members of this committee and Congress to make sure no further
tragedies like Libby happen because of asbestos or other toxic
substances.
Response. You can be assured that I personally and the Agency will
do everything possible to ensure that there are no future situations
like the one in Libby. The situation in Libby is tragic, and EPA is
taking meaningful steps to help better understand and resolve the
matter. Let me outline some of the steps being taken:
1. I understand that the agency is at the early stage of forming a
Blue Ribbon Panel which will seek expert views on how the Agency should
proceed with our asbestos and durable fibers program. The Panel's
charge will be to explore options including but not limited to:
<bullet> Revising the current NESHAP for asbestos
<bullet> Regulatory actions
<bullet> banning products
<bullet> labeling requirements
<bullet> product reporting requirements for manufacturers and
importers
<bullet> notification and disclosure rules for property transfers
<bullet> Consumer education efforts
<bullet> Possible legislative action on asbestos products
<bullet> Durable Fiber Testing Program
<bullet> Peer review of risk assessment methodologies
2. An agency-wide Asbestos Coordination Team (ACT) was also formed
over a year ago as a way to share information within the Agency
(Superfund, OPPT, Regional offices, ORD) as well as outside the Agency
with our other Federal partners (DOL, HHS, DOT, ATSDR, CPSC).
3. The ONE (OSHA, NIOSH, MSHA, and EPA) Committee meets on a
regular basis to share information and current activities within each
Agency. Both EPA and MSHA have inspected the three remaining
vermiculite mines and will continue to do so on a regular basis to
avoid another Libby-like situation. In addition, other mines where
asbestos contamination may be present have been inspected.
4. The Superfund program has conducted site assessments of the
approximately 250 sites where asbestos contaminated vermiculite was
processed. Of those 250 sites, 16 require more in depth assessment and
possible cleanup.
5. OPPT and Region 8 in Libby are conducting a vermiculite home
attic insulation study to 1) determine if the insulation is
contaminated with asbestos and 2) if so, does that asbestos pose a risk
to the home owner. In August 2000, OPPT completed a study of
vermiculite gardening products and found that while a few of the
products contained low levels (<1 percent) of asbestos, the risks to
consumers using these products were minimal.
Question 3. I'm sure you know that EPA is considering placing Libby
on the National Priorities List, in order to direct more funding to
Libby for remediation efforts. Business folks obviously are concerned
about what Superfund designation will do to complexion of the
community, that such a designation will be looked on as a stigma,
keeping business and investment away from Libby.
I want your assurance that you will not make this decision without
fully exploring the ramifications with the people of Libby, and the
State of Montana. I don't want placing Libby on the national priorities
list to take the place of other funding options.
Response. EPA is currently gathering environmental data in order to
make an informed National Priorities List (NPL) listing decision in
Libby, MT. EPA has monthly meetings with the Libby community (called
the Community Advisory Group), in which we obtain feedback on all
courses of action related to the Libby cleanup. EPA fully appreciates
that there may be a ``stigma'' associated with listing on the NPL. In
making decisions about the best way to clean up the contamination, EPA
will maximize the use of resources as expeditiously as possible. If
listing is deemed necessary, such a decision will include a timetable
for removing the Libby site from the NPL as soon as possible.
Question 4. The last 12 years of public policy on Superfund is that
polluter should pay, and that Superfund should not become a public
works program relative to clean-up. It's a good public policy; it
worked even under the first Bush Administration. However, Superfund has
become a policy of containment, rather than clean-up. In over about 70
percent of Federal sites, the Record Of Decision calls for containment,
not clean-up. I worry that we will get a policy of containment, not
clean-up, for all superfund sites, rather than just containment in
areas where permanent clean-up is not feasible.
With the number of Superfund sites in Montana that still require
substantial clean-up efforts, obviously, this concerns me. Following
the policy of the polluter pays, and putting more emphasis on clean-up,
do you have any thoughts on reforming Superfund that you could agree
with?
Response. EPA is willing to work with Congress on legislative
proposals that can achieve bi-partisan support to improve Superfund. As
you know, brownfields legislation is a priority of the President and
has been a more immediate focus of attention for this Administration.
EPA supports S. 350, ``The Brownfields Revitalization and Restoration
Act of 2001.'' Further, EPA supports H.R. 1831, ``The Small Business
Liability Relief Act.'' I will be interested in discussing Superfund
legislation with Congress more fully as the session develops.
With respect to the selection of cleanup remedies, EPA selects
remedies that address statutory provisions in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
regarding permanence and treatment. These provisions ensure that
cleanups are protective over the long term, and facilitate the return
of previously contaminated property to beneficial use. In fact, since
the Superfund program began, treatment remedies have been selected for
use at 58 percent of all NPL sites.
Question 5. Ms. Fisher, as you know, price discrepancies exist
between the United States and Canada when it comes to farm pesticides.
The price charged to US farmers is sometimes almost twice as much as
what the Canadian farmer pays. Generally, the Canadian and US
pesticides are almost identical and are manufactured by the same
company, or related companies. Recent surveys have placed prices in the
US from 117 percent to 193 percent higher than those in Canada for
virtually the same products.
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency was placed in the
position of being an accessory to this scheme because of the laws
governing the importation of farm pesticides. Although the EPA knew
there was not an environmental or health risk, the Agency had to stop
financially strapped farmers from buying a less expensive, but
identical, product from Canada. Montana farmers have been losing
between 10 to 40 million dollars per.
First, what does pesticide harmonization mean to you?
Response. Pursuant to my ethics agreement of May 1, 2001 (copy
attached) I stated that I would not participate in any particular
matter having an effect on my holdings in certain publicly held stocks
until I divest these interests or obtain a waiver. Among my holdings I
own stock in several pharmaceutical and pesticide manufacturing
companies. I also continue to have an on-going financial relationship
with my former employer, Pharmacia Inc. As stated in my ethics
agreement, I will divest my interests within 3 months of my Senate
confirmation. Until I divest these interests or obtain a waiver, I will
recuse myself from participating in the matters related to these
particular questions. I note that these questions have also been posed
to Stephen Johnson, the nominee for the position of Assistant
Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and I
understand that he will be providing answers to the committee.
Question 6. What actions need to be taken to have cross border
availability of pesticides and what would the timeline look like?
Response. See above.
Question 7. Legislation was introduced--legislation that was
drafted with the technical help of the EPA I might add--to prevent the
agency from being used in this manner again. Unfortunately, the
legislation was not passed. Thus, the Agency, and our farmers, are
going to be in the same position again this year, and the Agency will
be once again be used to fix the prices our farmers pay. Legislation to
solve this problem has been introduced again this year.
Do you support this type of legislation? If legislation fails to
pass Congress again this year, how would you solve this problem?
Response. See above.
__________
Responses by Linda Fisher to Additional Questions from Senator Wyden
Question. Last year, EPA declared almost six miles of the Lower
Willamette River as it passes through Portland, Oregon to be a
Superfund site. Congress has authorized the Corps of Engineers to
remove contaminated sediments from navigable waters to enhance the
environment and improve water quality. The Corps and public and private
parties on the Willamette are interested in using this so-called
``environmental restoration'' authority to expedite the clean-up of the
river and to reduce the Superfund transaction costs that divert funds
from actual clean-up work. In particular, they would like to enforce
Superfund's standards by working with EPA to coordinate the Corps'
``environmental restoration'' process with the Superfund process.
I would appreciate your help in ensuring that EPA seriously
considers this creative and cost-effective approach to the clean-up of
the Lower Willamette. If you are confirmed, would you study this
possible blended approach and try to make it succeed in the case of the
Willamette Superfund site?
Response. The Portland Harbor site, which includes portions of the
Lower Willamette River, was listed on the NPL on December 1, 2000.
Since then, a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA, six Tribal
Nations, Federal and State Trustees, and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality has been developed. The Region is currently
negotiating an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) and the Statement
of Work (SOW) with several Potentially Responsible Parties to do the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Part of these
negotiations involve discussions related to the Army Corps of
Engineers' ``environmental restoration `` authority. As part of the on-
going activities, EPA has been working closely with the Corps of
Engineers to evaluate approaches for integrating Army Corps of
Engineers activity or funding, including environmental restoration
authority, which may become available for work at the site.
It is EPA's expectation that we will continue to work with all
parties to consider creative, cost-effective and technically sound
approaches to address the contamination at the Portland Harbor
Superfund site.
__________
Statement of Jeffrey Holmstead, Nominee for Assistant Administrator,
Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the
opportunity to testify before you this morning. It is an honor to be
here today as the President's nominee to be the Assistant Administrator
of the Office of Air and Radiation. I am especially pleased to be
joined by my wife, my four children, and my parents.
I obviously hope that this committee and the full Senate will see
fit to confirm me, because I am eager to have the chance to work with
Governor Christie Todd Whitman as she starts her tenure as
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that,
with the support of President Bush and this committee, I will be able
to help Governor Whitman make continued improvements in the quality of
the nation's air while at the same time making EPA's regulatory
programs more effective and less costly.
As Senator Campbell can understand, growing up in Boulder,
Colorado, gave me a great appreciation for the environment and the
outdoors. Even so, when I graduated from law school in 1987, I did not
plan to spend my career working to solve environmental problems. But
after a year of practicing corporate law, I had the opportunity to
serve in the White House of President George Herbert Walker Bush, where
I spent much of my time working on environmental issues. After arriving
in the White House, I soon found that the work of trying to find
effective ways to protect and improve the environment was more
challenging and rewarding that anything else I could imagine. I have
focused my career on environmental issues ever since. It is a great
honor to be nominated by President George W. Bush to continue working
on the issues that are of such vital importance to all of us and our
children.
I share Governor Whitman's commitment to protecting the environment
of the United States and her goal of leaving the environment cleaner
than she found it. I recognize that the job for which I am seeking
confirmation will present many challenges and many difficult issues.
But I believe we can overcome the challenges and resolve the difficult
issues. My optimism comes from a sincere belief that we all share the
goal of using good science to identify our environmental goals, and
good policy to achieve those goals cost-effectively. Starting from this
shared goal, I hope to have the opportunity to work with all
stakeholders to increase cooperation and decrease the acrimony that has
occasionally accompanied these issues in the past.
I think that we can take pride in the progress that all of us
States, industry, advocacy groups, Congress, and EPA have made in
cleaning the nation's air over the last three decades. Since 1970, when
Congress first passed the Clean Air Act, we have made many advances in
the science and the art of environmental protection. Both EPA and the
States have become more effective at designing programs to achieve our
common goals. We are using more market-based strategies and other
flexible regulatory tools. More and more, State and local agencies are
working with businesses and communities to solve environmental problems
as partners. EPA has been both a partner and often a leader in these
efforts. But I believe that EPA can do even more.
In other areas of endeavor it has been said that we can see further
than the people who came before us because we stand on their shoulders.
Thirty-one years have passed since the Clean Air Act of 1970, 24 years
since the amendments of 1977 and 11 years since the President's father
signed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments into law. Much progress has
been made over the years and just as importantly, much has been
learned. These lessons put us on a path of continued progress for the
future.
Just because a program gets results does not mean it cannot be
improved. An effort to make a program simpler and more flexible should
not be viewed as an excuse to make it less effective. If we are open to
new possibilities, if we actively seek out the best ideas from everyone
our partners, our stakeholders, and our staff we can develop better
approaches for protecting and improving our nation's air. By basing
those approaches on the best available science, by focusing on results
and allowing people to find innovative ways to achieve those results,
we can continue to improve the quality of the nation's air and make our
regulatory programs more effective and less costly.
If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with you and your
staffs to achieve these goals. Thank you.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions From Senator
Reid
Question 1. Will you, if confirmed, do everything in your power to
ensure that the Agency complies with its statutory requirement to
promulgate a rule that sets strong public health and safety standards
for the protection of the public from releases of radioactive materials
from the proposed Yucca Mountain site?
Response. Under the Energy Policy Act, EPA is required to set
health and safety standards for the disposal of high level radioactive
waste, including any such waste that may be stored or disposed of at
the proposed Yucca Mountain site. If I am confirmed, I will work to
ensure that EPA fulfills this obligation and all other statutory
obligations that have been assigned to the Office of Air and Radiation.
Question 2. What are your views on the final rule EPA sent to OMB
and what are your plans for moving that forward?
Response. Although I have worked in the field of environmental law
for almost 12 years, I have never had the opportunity to work on
radiation issues, and I am not yet familiar with the details of this
rule. I understand that the Administrator supports the need for
groundwater protection at Yucca Mountain and I am supportive of this
approach. Otherwise, I have not formed any views on the rule. If I am
confirmed, however, I will work to ensure that EPA meets its statutory
obligations in a timely fashion, including its obligations under the
Energy Policy Act.
Question 3. Once a rule is final, will you, if confirmed, do
everything in your power to ensure that all NRC and DOE activities
comply with that rule and other applicable Agency requirements,
assuming the Administration proceeds with further consideration of the
Yucca Mountain site?
Response. Under the Energy Policy Act, EPA's role is to publish a
rule setting forth standards designed to protect public health and the
environment from any potential releases of radioactive materials. The
Act charges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with the
responsibility for determining compliance with that standard. I am
confident that the NRC will do it's job in a responsible manner and
ensure that any of DOE's activities at the Yucca Mountain site comply
with the standards.
Question 4. Will you, if confirmed, actively oppose further action
on the proposed Yucca Mountain site if environmental data indicates
that the final standard cannot be met or is unlikely to be met?
Response. As noted above, NRC is responsible for determining
compliance with the EPA standard, and I am very confident that it will
carry out its responsibilities effectively. If I am confirmed, I will
closely follow the activities of DOE and NRC and call attention to any
issues that may affect public health or the environment.
Question 5. What role should EPA have in setting radiation
protection standards in general, relative to other Federal agencies?
Response. I understand that the EPA is the only Federal agency
charged with setting standards for protecting public health and the
environment from avoidable exposure to radiation. Thus, the Agency
develops guidance for all other Federal agencies to follow. As part of
this process, EPA sets ``fence line'' standards for NRC-licensed and
Department of Energy (DOE)-owned facilities. I am supportive of EPA's
current role.
Question 6. Please describe your role in the White House Counsel's
office and the work that you did for or as part of Vice President
Quayle's Council on Competitiveness: In particular, please describe
positions that you may have taken with respect to Clean Air Act
regulations or opinions on then-pending legislation or litigation,
including the landmark Wisconsin Electric Power Company case on new
source review.
Response. I served in the White House Counsel's Office from 1989 to
1993--first as Assistant Counsel to the President (from 1989 to 1990)
and then as Associate Counsel to the President. During my time in the
Counsel's Office, I worked on a wide variety of issues, including
government ethics and matters of constitutional law. My primary focus,
however, was environmental law and policy. I was part of a small White
House group that worked with Federal agencies and Departments on a
broad range of environmental issues, including the implementation of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
I was not a member of the Council on Competitiveness; nor did I
work for the Council on Competitiveness. My boss, C. Boyden Gray, was
the Counsel to the President and was one of several senior officials
who attended meetings of the Council on Competitiveness. Because I was
often responsible for doing the staff work to prepare him for these
meetings, I had the opportunity to interact on a regular basis with the
staff of the Competitiveness Council.
I was not involved in the Wisconsin Electric Power Company case on
New Source Review. Nor was I involved in any other litigation involving
the Clean Air Act. Although I was not part of the Administration's
legislative team that was working on the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,
I was involved in developing some of the Administration's positions on
the 1990 Amendments--primarily on Title V. (Much of the work to develop
the Administration's positions on the 1990 Amendments had been done
before I arrived at the White House in August 1989.)
I was involved in numerous meetings and discussions (probably
hundreds) about Clean Air Act regulations and other issues that arose
during the implementation of the 1990 Amendments. Because my White
House files were Federal records, I was not able to retain any of them
when I left the White House. As a result, I do not have a record of all
the Clean Air Act issues I may have worked on. Listed below are the
significant issues that I can recall, and the positions I took on them:
<bullet> Title V Operating Permit Regulations--I worked with EPA
staff to ensure that the Title V program would allow for necessary
operational flexibility. Along with many other people in the
Administration, I was concerned that Title V had the potential to
become an NSR-type pre-approval? program that would require facilities
to go through a lengthy review process to make even minor changes.
<bullet> Recycling Requirement for Waste Combustors--I (and many
others in the Administration) questioned whether it was legitimate
under the Clean Air Act for EPA to require operators of Waste
Combustors to sort and recycle materials from the wastes that were
shipped to them for incineration.
<bullet> Use of Contingent Valuation Studies--At several meetings
regarding a proposal to address visibility impairment in the Grand
Canyon, I questioned the use of contingent valuation studies as a way
to calculate benefits.
<bullet> Acid Rain Program--I was a strong proponent of the acid
rain trading program and was involved in numerous meetings to discuss
technical issues related to how it would function. I do not recall
specific issues or the positions I took on them.
<bullet> Air Toxics Regulations--Again, I was involved in numerous
meetings related to the Title III program designed to reduce emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In general, I advocated the use of
sound science in ranking HAPs under Section 112(g) and the use of
subcategories to ensure that EPA did not use a ``one-size-fits-all''
approach for developing MACT standards.
Question 7. During your tenure in the White House Counsel 195
office, did you have any role in or do work on private property rights
legislation or litigation? Do you believe that any public health or
environmental protections unconstitutionally limit private property
rights?
Response. I do not recall working on private property rights
legislation or litigation, although it is possible that I may have
attended meetings at which these issues were discussed. I agree with
the Supreme Court that, under certain circumstances, government actions
designed to protect the environment may constitute a ``taking'' of
private property that would require the government to pay just
compensation.
Question 8. Did you, at any point during your tenure in the White
House Counsel's office, formally recommend changes to the Clean Air
Act? If so, what changes did you recommend?
Response. As noted above, I was involved in developing some of the
Administration's positions on the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act.
I do not recall ever recommending that further changes be made to the
Clean Air Act after the 1990 Amendments were passed by Congress and
signed by the President.
Question 9. Have you advocated any changes to the Clean Air Act
since your tenure at the White House? If so, what changes did you
advocate and on whose behalf did you advocate them?
Response. In several meetings with clients over the last 8 years, I
have discussed possible changes to the Clean Air Act. In these
meetings, I have discussed the pros and cons of making certain changes
to the Act. However, I do not believe that I have ever advocated any
changes to the Act on behalf of any client (or on behalf of anyone
else).
Question 10. Are there any other changes to the Clean Air Act that
you have publicly advocated?
Response. As noted above, I do not believe that I have ever
publicly advocated any changes to the Clean Air Act.
Question 11. Do you support the revised NAAQS for ozone and PM-2.5
as published in 1997?
Response. The Supreme Court has endorsed EPA's efforts to protect
the health of millions of Americans from the dangers of air pollution,
and has affirmed the Agency's constitutional authority to set these
kinds of health protection standards in the future. Congress delegated
to EPA the standard-setting function, and the Court found that EPA has
carried it out appropriately. The Agency is continuing to defend these
standards in court and is preparing the way for their implementation. I
am supportive of these actions.
Question 12. What views, if any, have you expressed publicly or in
litigation regarding the science underpinning the revised ATAAQS for
ozone and PM-2.5?
Response. I have not publicly expressed any personal views
regarding the science underpinning the revised NAAQS for ozone and PM-
2.5. Nor have I been involved in any litigation on the subject. I did
represent a client during the rulemaking process and submitted comments
on it's behalf. These comments are attached.
Question 13. Did you participate in any litigation regarding the
NAAQS while in private practice? If so, please describe the positions
that you advocated and the clients involved.
Response. I did not participate in any litigation regarding the
NAAQS while in private practice.
Question 14. What are your views on the recent Supreme Court
decisions on the revised NAAQS for ozone and PM-2.5 and the NOx SIP
call?
Response. The Supreme Court's decision on the revised NAAQS for
ozone and PM-2.5 is obviously important for several reasons. It
affirmed the constitutionality of a key provision of the Clean Air Act.
It also affirmed EPA's long-standing interpretation that the Clean Air
Act precludes EPA from considering cost when setting these health-based
standards, while also noting that cost can be considered in
implementing the standards. Although the decision settled these key
issues, it also made clear that the Agency must reevaluate its
implementation strategy and seek to harmonize subparts I and II of Part
D of Title I. This will be a substantial challenge and, if I am
confirmed, I will look forward to working on it.
The Supreme Court decision on the NOx SIP Call let stand an
important decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. The D.C. Circuit's decision upholding the NOx SIP Call will
(1) help protect public health in the eastern portion of the United
States, and (2) allow States to use an innovative trading program that
provides industry the flexibility to achieve the necessary emission
reductions in the most cost-effective way.
Question 15. Will you work to make the new nonattainment area
designations for the new ozone standard, as required by law, as
expeditiously as possible?
Response. If I am confirmed, I intend to move forward expeditiously
with all the necessary steps to implement the new ozone standard. These
steps include designating nonattainment areas and developing an
implementation strategy that responds to the Supreme Court's remand.
Question 16. What are your views on EPA's UvB proposal now pending
at OMB and will you pledge to move it forward expeditiously?
Response. Although I am aware of the importance of this proposal, I
have not reviewed it. Nor have I closely followed the scientific
questions involved. As a result, I cannot comment on the proposal. If I
am confirmed, I will do my best to ensure that a proposed rule is
published expeditiously.
Question 17. Some Senators have called for changes to the new
source review process. Does this require legislation or should such
changes be accomplished through regulation?
Response. The Agency has been reviewing the new source review
program and working with stakeholders to determine how the new source
review program should be modified so that we can achieve our
environmental goals more efficiently. If I am confirmed, I would like
to do a thorough but efficient study of the NSR program. When that
study is complete, I will work with the various stakeholders to
determine whether any appropriate changes should be done through
regulation or legislation.
Question 18. The Agency has begun a number of enforcement actions
against power plant owners for violating new source review
requirements. Do you agree with Administrator Whitman's publicly
reported position that those actions should not be dropped? Will you
support continued and vigorous enforcement using the criteria that led
to those enforcement actions?
Response. I agree with Administrator Whitman that it is important
to ``first offer the carrot, but not to retire the stick.'' In my view,
EPA should set clear standards and then vigorously enforce them. With
respect to the current NSR enforcement actions against power plant
owners, I have not been involved in any of those actions and am not
familiar with the criteria that led to them.
Question 19. According to several sources, you are or were an
adjunct scholar at Citizens for the Environment, which is affiliated
with Citizens for a Sound Economy. Please explain that group's purpose
and mission and it's relationship to CSE, and your role as it related
to policy position or political campaign development.
Response. In 1993, shortly after I left the White House, a former
government colleague who was then working with citizens for the
Environment (CFE) asked me if I would testify on behalf of CFE on a
bill that would elevate EPA to cabinet status. In May 1993, I testified
in support of the bill at a joint hearing of the Environment, Energy,
and Natural Resources Subcommittee and the Legislation and National
Security Subcommittee. (A copy of my written testimony is attached.)
Because I worked with CFE staff to prepare the testimony and was
testifying on behalf of CFE, I became an adjunct scholar at CFE.
At that time, CFE was (and I believe still is) a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization that searches for market-oriented solutions to
environmental problems. It was created in 1990 under the auspices of
the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, an educational foundation
based in Washington D.C.
In about 1995, I also made a lunchtime presentation to CSE staff to
provide general background information on the Clean Air Act. Although I
may have attended one or two other meetings at CSE, I have not done any
further work with CSE or CFE. Except for the position in support of the
1993 bill to elevate EPA to cabinet status, I have not been involved in
developing any policy positions for CSE or CFE. Nor have I been
involved in any political campaign development activities with CSE or
CFE.
Question 20. What policy positions, if any, has Citizens for the
Environment taken with respect to the Clean Air Act or the Agency's
radiation protection responsibilities, while you have been a member?
Response. Although I have served as an adjunct scholar to CFE, I do
not believe that I have ever been a member of CFE. I have not worked
with CFE to develop any positions on Clean Air Act or radiation
protection issues and am not aware of any position that CFE may have
taken on any such issue.
Question 21. If these two groups are affiliated closely, such as
sharing board members or funding sources or staff resources, please
explain what policy positions that Citizens for a Sound Economy has
taken with respect to the Clean Air Act or the Agency ? radiation
protection responsibilities, while you have been a member of the
Citizens for the Environment?
Response. As far as I know, I have never been a member of CSE. I
have not worked with CSE to develop any positions on Clean Air Act or
radiation protection issues and am not aware of any position that CSE
may have taken on any such issue.
Question 22. Please list any other political affiliations with or
your membership in groups that have proposed amending the Clean Air Act
or other statutes which the Asst. Administrator for Air and Radiation
must implement. Please include the major proposals and the
organizations' missions.
Response. As far as I know, no group that I am a member of or
otherwise affiliated with has proposed any amendment to the Clean Air
Act or any other statute that the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation must help to implement. I have certainly not been involved in
developing any such proposal.
Question 23. Apparently, while at Latham and Watkins, you co-
authored a book with the Environmental Law Institute on pesticide
regulation. Have you advocated changes to the Food Quality Protection
Act or FIFRA? If so, what changes did you advocate and on whose behalf?
Response. I have been in several client meetings at which possible
changes to the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) have been discussed.
However, I have never advocated any such changes in public. One or more
of my clients may have supported legislation to amend the FQPA, but I
was not involved in developing such legislation or in any effort to
advocate for it.
Question 24. Do you believe that implementation of the FQPA is
proceeding quickly enough to remove dangerous pesticides from use and
production?
Response. Under the FQPA, EPA must reassess all existing pesticide
tolerances in accordance with a statutory schedule. I understand that
EPA has complied with this schedule and continues to place a high
priority on reassessing pesticides that appear to pose the greatest
risk. I believe that the Agency is strongly committed to the task of
removing dangerous pesticides from use and production.
Question 25. As you may know, the accident prevention provisions of
the Clean Air Act were amended recently because of FBI and industry
concerns about providing worst-case scenario data on the Internet. Does
the public have a right to know about the potential for catastrophic
chemical/toxic air accidents that could affect individuals 'property
and their community?
Response. I believe that the public should have access to
information about potential accidental air releases in their
communities. I also believe, however, that this type of public access
must be balanced against the need to protect those same communities
against terrorist acts. I understand that the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response has issued a final rule under section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act regarding the availability of this information, but I am
not familiar with that rule.
Question 26. What role should the Air program office play in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, pursuant to our treaty commitments
under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to reduce those
emissions to 1990 levels?
Response. I believe that the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
should continue to play its historic and important role in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that the programs run by OAR have
and will continue to achieve significant results. Domestically, since
President George H.W. Bush established the first programs (Green Lights
and ENERGY STAR) in 1992, OAR has entered into thousands of voluntary
partnerships with large and small businesses, State, and local
governments, and others. The programs are reducing the growth in U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions, while saving money for American families and
businesses. In addition, OAR is working with auto manufacturers to
develop dramatic fuel economy improvements in all types of motor
vehicles, from cars to heavy duty trucks. OAR also has a large program
of bilateral cooperation activities which help further reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Work is focused in countries that are large
greenhouse gas emitters and that offer large ``win-win'' opportunities
for reducing emissions--countries with economies in transition to a
free market and key developing countries.
Question 27. Will you, if confirmed, ensure that this committee and
its staff receives timely and useful technical assistance from the Air
program offices should we begin work on preparing legislation to
require reductions in greenhouse gases from electric power generators
or other sectors?
Response. Yes. The Agency's policy has long been to provide timely
and useful technical assistance at the request of this committee and
its staff. If confirmed, I will use my best efforts to see that the
Office of Air and Radiation faithfully adheres to this policy.
Question 28. As you may know, the Administration has not yet
released guidance to the stales on best available retrofit technology
(BART) under the regional haze rule, despite requests from several
Governors and environmental groups. There does not seem to be any need
to delay the BART proposal. What would your plans be with respect to
this important matter?
Response. I have not made any specific plans with respect to the
BART Guidance. I recognize its importance and know that it is a high
priority action that needs (and is receiving) a thorough review by
Governor Whitman and her staff. If I am confirmed, I will do my best to
ensure that this guidance is completed and released in a timely manner.
Question 29. As you may know, Administrator Whitman indicated at
her nomination hearing that she and the President believe that Federal
facilities should be treated the same as private facilities, in terms
of compliance with environmental requirements. Do you agree?
Response. I support the position of the President and the
Administrator that Federal facilities should be held to the same
environmental standards that apply to private facilities. This issue is
a priority for her and, as she has said, it will require significant
coordination among Federal agencies and with the States, tribal
governments, and Congress.
Question 30. What are the greatest challenges awaiting the next
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation?
Response. Obviously, there are a number of important and
challenging issues that face the Office of Air and Radiation. They
include making continued progress in cleaning the air, reducing the
number of people living in nonattainment areas, reducing the number of
asthma attacks in children, reforming new source review, and many
others. Perhaps that greatest challenge is finding a way to bring
stakeholders together to find appropriate solutions for these and other
issues. Because we all share the goal of using good science to protect
the environment in the most efficient and cost effective manner
possible, I believe that we should be able to work together and find
ways to address the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders.
testimony of jeffrey r. holmstead on behalf of citizens for the
environment environment, energy, and natural resources subcommittee
legislation and national security subcommittee
may 6, 1993
Good morning. My name is Jeff Holmstead. I am an attorney with. the
law firm of Latham & Watkins, but this morning I am not representing my
law firm or any of it clients. Rather, I am appearing on behalf of
Citizens for the Environment (also known as CFE), where I serve as an
adjunct scholar. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you this morning.
Citizens for the Environment is nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
that searches for market-oriented solutions to environmental problems.
CFE was created in 1990 under the auspices of the Citizens for a Sound
Economy Foundation, an educational foundation based in Washington, DC.
that has over 250,000 members nationwide.
As an organization that is committed to the free market, we
recognize the important role played by the Environmental Protection
Agency. While many people, including our organization, question the
intervention of the Federal Government into the private market in many
areas, it is clear that, because of market failures, protecting the
environment is not only a valid but an important function of
government. Because individuals and firms do not bear the full social
cost of any pollutants that they discharge into the environment--so-
called negative externalities the private market will not effectively
control such discharges. Therefore, to correct this market failure, it
is important for the government to take action to ensure that
individuals and firms internalize the full social costs of their
actions. In recognition of this important role played by the
Environmental Protection Agency, we support its elevation to cabinet
status.
We believe that there are also other reasons for Congress to
elevate the Agency to cabinet status. First, it is clear that the
American people are committed to the protecting the environment. Making
the Agency a department and giving it a place at the cabinet table will
reflect the importance that we as a country place on environmental
protection. Second, as others have noted, most other countries have
accorded cabinet or ministry status to the agencies responsible for
environmental protection in their countries. Although the State
Department is charged with conducting international negotiations--
including negotiations involving environmental issues--the interests of
the United States may be better served in such negotiations by giving
our Environmental Protection Agency a status equal to that of its
counterparts in other countries.
Third, and perhaps most important, we believe that elevating EPA to
cabinet status will bring more political accountability to the Agency.
Currently, the United States spends more of its resources on
environmental protection than any other country in the world. Most
estimates suggest that the cost of environmental regulation in the
United States is currently between $100 and $150 million a year. By the
end of the decade, this number is expected to reach close to $200
million--about 3 percent of our gross national product. Most Americans
have come to realize in recent years that such regulatory costs are the
equivalent of a hidden tax that is added to the cost of virtually every
product or service they buy.
While there is no doubt that most Americans are willing to have
their resources spent on environmental protection, they also expect--.
and have a right to expect . . that those resources will be spent
wisely. If they are unhappy about the actions that the Federal
Government is taking to protect the environment either because of the
level of protection provided or the way in which their resources are
being spent--? they should be able to express their dissatisfaction in
the voting booth. Yet many people still regard EPA as an independent
agency that is largely outside the President's control. We believe
that, in order to ensure that the President is politically accountable
for the Agency's actions, it is important for the Agency to be
recognized as part of his cabinet.
We also believe that the agency should be elevated in a
straightforward manner without unnecessary legislative mandates. Quite
apart from the concerns that we have about several of the proposals
that have been discussed in recent months, we are strongly of the view
that such a ``clean'' bill has the best chance of being enacted. If
history is any guide, the more the bill is loaded up with extraneous
measures, the less its chances of actually being passed by the Congress
and signed by the President. We therefore urge the Subcommittee to
support a clean bill that would elevate the Agency to cabinet status.
Because of our interest in ensuring political accountability, the
only additional measures we would support are those designed to enhance
public scrutiny of the Agency's actions. For instance, we would support
a measure along the lines of that sponsored by Senator Johnston that
would require rules promulgated by the new Department to be accompanied
by an analysis comparing the costs of the rule with the risks to human
health and the environment that the rule is meant to address.
Similarly, we would support a requirement similar to Senator
Murkowski's proposal to require public cost-benefit assessments for
certain rulemakings.
We have particular concerns about certain proposals that the
Subcommittee is considering. We do not believe that it is necessary or
desirable to create a separate Bureau of Environmental Statistics.
Under its current structure, the Agency already can (and does) collect
and assess all the data that would come under the jurisdiction of the
new Bureau. Adding new bureaucracy would simply require more
expenditures of taxpayer dollars at a time when there is significant
public sentiment for cutting government spending. We are also concerned
that such a Bureau may create the illusion that many important
environmental issues are purely statistical, when in fact they are much
more complicated. For example, risk assessments appear to be
exclusively a scientific and statistical exercise, when in fact they
contain a number of important policy assumptions. We are concerned that
if risk assessments or similar environmental analyses are assigned to a
separate Bureau within the Agency, these sorts of policy choices will
not be subject to necessary public scrutiny.
We also oppose other proposals that would be unnecessary or
duplicative. For instance, some have suggested the creation of a new
Commission to study the Agency's structure and operations. Numerous
groups--both inside and outside the Federal Government., have already
studied such issues. Although the issues themselves may warrant further
consideration, we question whether taxpayer dollars should be used to
create a commission to study them further at this time. Such a
commission is likely to be viewed as yet another unnecessary government
expenditure at a time when the public is demanding fiscal restraint.
In conclusion, Citizens for the Environment supports the elevation
of the Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet status. We urge the
Subcommittee to do just that, without additional measures that will add
unnecessary costs and reduce the chances of final passage. The only
additional measures we would support are those specifically designed to
enhance the public accountability of the new department.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this
morning. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Question 31. One of the items you mentioned in answer to the pre-
hearing questions was your work on regulations to implement Title V of
the Clean Air Act, specifically on the operating permit program. Some
have characterized your involvement as advocating less public
participation in that permitting process than the law requires and
allows. Is that accurate? And, if so, should public or citizens'
participation be limited in permit decisions that might increase
pollution in their neighborhood?
Response. I strongly support public participation in regulatory
decisions, including the right of citizens to comment on significant
permitting decisions. I have never advocated the use of less public
participation in the permitting process than the law requires. I have
always taken the position that EPA should strike the proper balance to
ensure that (1) the public has an opportunity to comment on significant
permitting actions and (2) the permitting process provides sufficient
flexibility for facilities to make minor changes without the need to go
through a lengthy and burdensome process. Requiring a public process
for insignificant changes hurts businesses by unnecessarily delaying
actions, hurts permitting agencies that are understaffed and overworked
by creating additional workload, and hurts the public by diverting
attention from truly important regulatory actions. I believe that lines
can be drawn between significant and insignificant actions and that
State and local permitting agencies can be trusted to ensure that
actions are properly characterized.
I also believe that some of the new permitting ideas that EPA has
been exploring, such as Plant-wide Applicability Limits or PALs, are
promising and should be further investigated. PALs focus public comment
on a relatively few situations. The PAL approach gives the public a
meaningful opportunity to comment on the full range of air issues
associated with a facility, and also provides the facility with an
appropriate amount of flexibility.
Question 32. As you may know, the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong,
California, was recently recognized as the largest air polluter in
California. That facility, which conducts open burning and detonation
of old munitions, sends the bulk of its toxic emissions downwind into
the Washoe Valley, affecting thousands of Nevadans. The Depot's Title V
permit is now being revised and the public and I have had a chance to
comment on those revisions and the relevant regulations and guidance.
Should the public have been excluded from the opportunity to comment on
that permit revision?
Response. No. There is clearly a role for the public in the Title V
permitting process, and the role the public played in the permitting of
the Sierra Depot is an appropriate one. In this case, citizens
requested that EPA reopen the Depot's permit to correct several alleged
flaws. The Washoe County District Health Department also wrote in
support of this request. As I understand it, EPA examined the permit
and found that it did, in fact, contain flaws that would justify a
reopening. Under EPA regulations, when a Title V permit is reopened,
the public must have an opportunity to comment on a draft of the
corrected permit. As you note, such an opportunity was afforded in the
case of Sierra Depot. In addition to your comments, several concerned
citizens, citizen groups, and a nearby Indian Tribe also submitted
comments on the proposed permit, as revised. I understand that the
Lassen County Air Pollution Control District is considering all these
comments is d?veloping its final permit, which is expected to be issued
very soon.
Question 33. Would it be your intention to prepare and support
imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan for those States that
refuse to complete adequate final SIP revisions to satisfy the NOx SIP
Call by the statutory deadline?
Response. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the emission
reductions associated with the NOx SIP Call are achieved. My hope is
that we will be able to work with the States to ensure that they submit
plans to achieve these reductions without having to resort to Federal
implementation plans. Although I believe that we will be able to
accomplish this goal, I would support the use of a Federal plan for any
State that may refuse to complete an adequate final SIP revision.
Question 34. I was glad to read in your answers that you believe
the BART (best available retrofit technology) guidance is a high
priority, since that will help implement the Regional Haze rule. This
will help assure that our scenic vistas in the West are not diminished.
What did you mean when you wrote that you ``questioned the use of
contingent valuation studies as a way to calculate benefits in rules .
. . to address visibility impairment in the Grand Canyon?'' How else do
you recommend that the government and the public assess the intangible
benefits of these scenic vistas? Do you believe that it is EPA's
responsibility to ensure that air quality related values, such as
visibility, are protected?
Response. I believe that EPA has an important responsibility to
protect and enhance air quality related values such as visibility. I
also believe that the Agency must use the full range of analytical
tools, including contingent valuation studies, in deciding how to
protect these values. It is important, however, to recognize both the
strengths and the limitations of all analytical tools, including
contingent valuation studies.
As you may know, in the context of visibility issues, a contingent
valuation study is often based on a survey in which people are shown
two photographs of a scenic vista--one that shows a clear view of the
scene and another that shows a hazy view of the same scene. They are
then asked how much they would be willing to pay to make the hazy scene
look like the clear one. By extrapolating their answers to a much
bigger population (perhaps the entire population of the United States),
the researchers then estimate the total monetary value of improving the
scenic vista in question. As many researchers have acknowledged, there
are several problems with this approach. First, studies have suggested
that the amount someone may say they would be willing to pay for a
particular ``good'' is often quite different than the amount they are
actually willing to pay when offered the opportunity to purchase it.
Second, unless properly designed, contingent valuation surveys tend to
understate uncertainties. For example, in the case of visibility, there
is an implication that regulatory action can make the ``hazy vista''
look 'like the clear one. In fact, however, actual visibility may
depend on a variety of factors, many of which cannot be controlled by
regulatory action.
Notwithstanding the limitations of contingent valuation studies, I
believe that they can be useful tools for decisionmakers who must
decide how to protect visibility and other intangible benefits. In the
end, I believe that publicly accountable officials should use an open
process to consider all the available information and weigh all the
relevant factors. Then they should exercise their best judgment in
deciding how to protect and enhance air quality related values and
explain their decision to the public.
Question 35. I would appreciate your reassurance that you are
committed to openness and transparency in the Federal regulatory review
matters involving the Clean Air Act. As you know, the Clean Air Act
contains many requirements to ensure that citizens are capable of
obtaining information on these Federal processes. In particular, I
would like to know that you intend to comply with the spirit and letter
of section 307(d)(4)(i) of the Act and will not seek to modify that
provision or the regulations implementing that section.
Response. As noted above, I strongly support an open rulemaking
process. From my own experience, I know that many stakeholders have
valuable information and insights that can only be provided through an
open process. I will comply with section 307(d)(4)(i) and do not intend
to seek modification of that provision or any regulations implementing
it.
Question 36. The answers to the pre-hearing questions are a little
confusing on one last point. Were you or were you not a member of
Citizens for the Environment (CFE) and Citizens for a Sound Economy
(CSE)?
Response. As I explained in my answers to the pre-hearing
questions, I have served as an Adjunct Scholar to CFE. which is
affiliated with CSE. In those answers to the pre-hearing questions, I
stated that I do not believe that I have ever been a member of CFE''
and that. ``[a]s far as I know, I have never been a member of CSE.'' I
qualified my answers because I thought it was possible that one or both
of these organizations might consider me a member because of my service
as an Adjunct Scholar, even though I have taken no other action to
become a member. After receiving your follow-tip questions, I contacted
CSE to see whether they have any record of my being a member of either
organization. As of now (when my responses are due), I have not
received a response. All I can state is that I cannot recall ever
taking any action (such as paying dues) to become a member of either
organization, and I do not receive any sort of membership benefits
(such as publications) from either organization.
Question 37. As you know, the EPA is often criticized for failing
to have an adequate scientific basis for many of its policy decisions.
During her nomination hearing, Administrator Whitman pledged to address
this problem by making ``science the foundation for EPA's
policymaking.'' 'What steps would you lake as the Assistant
Administrator to ensure sound science is used in the policymaking
process at the Office of Air and Radiation?
Response. The quality and credibility of EPA's policy decisions
depend on sound assessment of the best available scientific
information. I believe that EPA, as a whole, has made important
progress in improving the quality of scientific research, scientific
assessment, and the peer review process upon which it relies--and that
the air office has taken part in this process. In this regard, recent
developments include the Research Coordination Teams for defined
strategic goals, multi-year planning (such as that encouraged by the
NRC for particulate matter), an Agency-wide Science Inventory, and an
expanded grants program to invite fresh ideas from the academic
community.
Even with this progress, I think more can be done. If I am
confirmed, I intend to encourage continued improvements within the
Office of Air and Radiation and in the Agency as a whole. I agree with
many of the NRC recommendations for improving science at EPA, including
developing scientific leadership and talent, a balanced and stable
research program, developing partnerships and outreach to other Federal
Departments, States, universities, industry, and other countries,
holding both our research and regulatory programs accountable to
periodic review, and implementing and improving the peer review
process.
I would look forward to working closely with EPA's Office of
Research and Development and others in the Agency to improve the
quality and relevance of scientific research and to insure our draft
regulations undergo scientific scrutiny within and outside the agency.
The recent outreach and review of the NATA project by EPA's Science
Advisory Board is an example of the way in which we can improve our
assessment of air toxics. If confirmed, I intend to hold the work of my
staff to the highest standards in ensuring the quality of our work, and
to encourage the development of procedures to determine how well things
are working on a continuous basis.
Question 38. There is substantial uncertainty about the health
effects of low-level radiation, although this is a potential threat to
the American people from a variety of sources. According to the EPA,
however, the sound science initiative does not include funding for
radiation. Do you believe the EPA should make understanding low-level
radiation exposure an element of the sound science performance goal?
Response. While there is some uncertainty associated with the risk
estimates of low radiation exposures, all major scientific
organizations and national and international regulatory agencies
currently use the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model as the basis for
their radiation protection strategies. Although EPA uses this approach,
it is also sponsoring and closely following two important activities to
evaluate health effects at low levels of' radiation. The first is the
National Academy of Sciences, BEIR VII, study to assess the dose-
response relationship at low exposures based on new data from Japanese
survivors. Second, EPA is closely following the Department of Energy's
(DOE's) Low Dose Radiation Research Program, a $20 million, 10-year
effort to evaluate health risks from exposures to low levels of
radiation by looking specifically at the biological mechanisms that
cause cancer.
If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure that EPA's radiation
science continues to incorporate the best available information. I also
will work with the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) to
determine whether radiation science work done by OAR should be included
in the GPRA Sound Science Performance Goal that is managed by ORD.
Question 39. The EPA is responsible for establishing the radiation
release standards for Yucca Mountain. The EPA has, however, come under
pressure from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of
Energy to modify parts of the standard. Do you believe the EPA should
be the lead agency in setting this standard? Do you believe the EPA
should apply the same standards to drinking water supplies to Yucca
Mountain as it applies to drinking water supplies throughout the rest
of the country? Will you work to make sure the standard which is
released by the EPA truly reflects the best judgment of the EPA and not
that of the NRC or DOE?
Response. I am supportive of EPA's role as the lead agency in
setting radiation release standards for Yucca Mountain. As Governor
Whitman has said, protection of groundwater at Yucca Mountain is
important for current residents and future generations. As stated in my
answers to the pre-hearing questions, I have not been involved in
policy discussions on Yucca Mountain, but if I am confirmed before the
Yucca Mountain standards are established, I will seek to ensure that
they reflect EPA's best judgment.
Question 40. In your response to pre-hearing questions you
indicated ``The EPA is the only Federal agency charged with setting
standards for protecting public health and the environment from
avoidable exposure to radiation.'' Could you please explain what you
mean by ``avoidable''? What determines the level of radiation exposure
that should be avoidable? Does high cost of compliance make some
radiation exposure unavoidable?
Response. Everyone is exposed to background levels of radiation
that are unavoidable. Examples include naturally occurring radioactive
materials in air and water, and cosmic radiation from the sun, which
increases at higher elevations. EPA defines avoidable exposure as
radiation from man-made activities that create new radioactive isotopes
(such as nuclear power plants) or that concentrate those found in
nature (such as radon in homes). I do not believe that compliance costs
or technical achievability should be a significant factor in
determining whether risks are considered to be avoidable or
unavoidable. In my view cost and technical achievability should be
considered in determining the best way to reduce the risk from
radiation, regardless of how it is classified.
Question 41. There is considerable overlap of regulatory
responsibility between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA on
radiation standards. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
considered developing standards for the release of metals from nuclear
weapons facilities or commercial power plants that may have some
contamination through the material. This material should also be
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as this material may
enter general commerce and appear in everyday household products. Also
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act gives the EPA and NRC separate
responsibilities for setting and enforcing radiation standards at Yucca
respectively. But the EPA has general responsibilities for protecting
the public and environment from radiation exposure, and should enforce
those at Yucca Mountain. In your response to my pre-hearing question
regarding the role of the EPA in setting general radiation protection
standards, you indicated ``EPA sets 'fence-line' standards for NRC-
licensed facilities and DOE-owned facilities.'' Do you believe the EPA
should also regulate products such as contaminated metals coming from
these facilities that may be recycled into consumer products? What
about ensuring compliance with radionuclide standards for air emissions
from these facilities as well? Do you agree that the EPA should apply
this ``fence-line'' standard at Yucca Mountain as well?
Response. While EPA is not currently developing standards for
recycling radioactive materials, the Agency is following the activities
of the National Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) to ensure that these materials are addressed in a
responsible manner. EPA's current efforts are focused on controlling
the indiscriminate or accidental loss of sealed radiation sources that
have the potential to cause a greater risk to the public if ruptured in
scrap yards or steel mills. In the meantime, we are regulating air
emissions from DOE's facilities under our National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart I-I. With regard to Yucca
Mountain, EPA's proposed standard addressed all exposure pathways,
including air.
______
Responses of Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. Describe your role as a ``contact'' during a 1998
lobbying campaign related to EPA rules designed to address interstate
air pollution.
Response. In 1998, I was a partner at the law firm of Latham &
Watkins. Among other Things, I was responsible for overseeing the
firm's compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). In this
regard, my primary responsibilities were (1) to educate my colleagues
about their obligations (and the firm's obligations) under the LDA; (2)
to ensure that anyone at the firm who became a ``lobbyist'' within the
meaning of the LDA was promptly registered as such; and (3) to ensure
that the firm filed semiannual reports on the ``lobbying activities''
of any of its partners and employees. Because I was responsible for the
firm's LDA compliance, I was listed as the ``contact'' person on all
the LDA forms submitted by the firm, even though I was never a
lobbyist.
I had no involvement in the lobbying campaign mentioned above. Nor
do I have any recollection of this effort or who may have been involved
in it. If I was listed as a ``contact,'' I assume that my law firm must
have filed an LDA report regarding these lobbying activities. I believe
that a review of the LDA forms submitted by Latham & Watkins during
1998 will show that I am listed as the contact person on all such
forms.
I would also like to address two other issues that have been raised
in recent press reports. A recent article in the BNA Daily Environment
Report states that, when I served in the White House Counsel's Office,
I was ``detailed'' to the Competitiveness Council. This is simply
incorrect. I was never detailed to the Competitiveness Council (or
anywhere else).
Second, according to the same article, a group called the Clean Air
Trust claims that I ``testified before Congress in favor of requiring
EPA to consider costs in developing air quality standards under the
Clean Air Act.'' Again, this is simply incorrect. I have never
testified on this issue. Until last week, when I had the opportunity to
appear before your committee, the only time I gave testimony to
Congress was in 1993, when I testified in support of a proposal to
elevate EPA to cabinet status. A copy of this testimony was attached to
my answers to the pre-hearing questions.
In my testimony, I said that, although I generally preferred a
``clean'' bill that would simply elevate EPA to cabinet status, I could
support ``a measure along the lines of that sponsored by Senator
Johnston that would require rules promulgated by [EPA] to be
accompanied by an analysis comparing the costs of [a] rule with the
risks to human health and the environment that the rule is meant to
address.'' Senator Johnston's measure would not have done anything to
change the Agency's approach for setting air quality standards under
the Clean Air Act.
______
Responses of Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. During your nomination hearing you were asked whether
you supported the 1997 NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter, yes or
no. Considering the pending litigation and the planned scientific
review I do not believe a simple yes or no suffices, particularly since
the Agency is currently reassessing the science. Would you please
elaborate on your answer.
Response. As you know, the Supreme Court recently resolved two key
issues related to the 1997 NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter
(PM)--that the statutory provision under which EPA sets the NAAQS is
not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and that EPA
may not consider costs in setting the NAAQS. However, the 1997 NAAQS
for ozone and PM are still under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit). The Agency is
committed to defending these standards in court and is preparing the
way for their implementation. Like Governor Whitman, I am supportive of
these actions.
I also recognize, however, that the Agency may still need to
respond to legal or policy issues that may arise from the ongoing
litigation in the D.C. Circuit. At a minimum. EPA must still respond to
the D.C. Circuit's remand to consider whether ground-level ozone has a
beneficial effect by providing protection against UvB radiation. If I
am confirmed, I will work to ensure that EPA responds to this and any
other issues raised by the D.C. Circuit expeditiously and based on
sound science.
With respect to the on-going reassessment of the science, I support
the Agency's goal of completing the scientific review of PM health
effects before fully implementing the PM 2.5 standard that EPA set in
1997. I understand that this review is well under way. If I am
confirmed, I will work to ensure that it is completed as expeditiously
as possible. in accordance with the requirements of a thorough
scientific review.
Question 2. As you may know, the Science Advisory Board was highly
critical of the first draft report under EPA's Residual Risk program
for Secondary Lead Smelters. The SAB identified a number of assessments
and analysis that they found were either missing or incomplete such as
population risks and uncertainty analysis. The report acknowledged that
of the 174 source categories, the Lead Smelter Industry should be one
of the easiest Reports since the industry is relatively data-rich. In
fact the SAB noted ``lack of data will likely pose much greater
problems when other source categories are addressed in the future,
appropriate recognition of this problem is needed by both Congress and
the Agency in order to develop an adequate data base to support the
residual risk analysis program. `` I am concerned that over the last 10
years this issue has been ignored by the Agency. Will you commit to
conducting a review, when you are confirmed, to ascertain the state of
the Agency's preparedness for the residual risk program, identifying
the steps and timeline for the Agency to complete the necessary work?
Response. Based on my prior work in the private sector, I
understand the challenges that EPA faces in trying to develop a data
base that will allow the Agency to evaluate the need for residual risk
standards and to develop such standards where necessary. I understand
that the Agency has already started a process to review the needs of
this program and to set a time line for completing the necessary work.
If I am confirmed, I will closely follow these efforts and work to
ensure that the Agency has an effective strategy for meeting the needs
of the residual risk program.
Question 3. As you are probably aware, several reports have been
issued within the last 10 years critical of the overall quality and
independence of the science supporting EPA regulations. These include
EPA's own report in 1992, Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science,
Credible Decisions, and more recently, the National Resource Council's
2000 report, Strengthening Science at the U.S. EPA. What are your
thoughts on ways to strengthen the science behind important clean air
regulatory decisions, such as rules on air toxins and criteria
pollutants?
Response. The quality and credibility of EPA's policy decisions
depend on sound assessment of the best available scientific
information. I believe that EPA, as a whole, has made important
progress in improving the quality of scientific research, scientific
assessment, and the peer review process upon which it relies--and that
the air office has taken part in this process. In this regard, recent
developments include the Research Coordination Teams for defined
strategic goals, multi-year planning (such as that encouraged by the
NRC for particulate matter), an Agency-wide Science Inventory, and an
expanded grants program to invite fresh ideas from the academic
community.
Even with this progress, I think more can be done. If I am
confirmed, I intend to encourage continued improvements within the
Office of Air and Radiation and in the Agency as a whole. I agree with
many of the NRC recommendations for improving science at EPA, including
developing scientific leadership and talent, a balanced and stable
research program, developing partnerships and outreach to other Federal
Departments, States, universities, industry, and other countries,
holding both our research and regulatory programs accountable to
periodic review, and implementing and improving the peer review
process.
I would look forward to working closely with EPA's Office of
Research and Development and others in the Agency to improve the
quality and relevance of scientific research and to insure our draft
regulations undergo scientific scrutiny within and outside the agency.
The recent outreach and review of the NATA project by EPA's Science
Advisory Board is an example of the way in which we can improve our
assessment of air toxics. If confirmed, I intend to hold the work of my
staff to the highest standards in ensuring the quality of' our work,
and to encourage the development of procedures to determine how well
things are working on a continuous basis.
Question 4. I believe exposure data is an area the EPA has
virtually ignored. In testimony before the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, Dr. Mort Lippmann, Interim Chair of EPA's
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), criticized the ``highly conservative
nature of unit risk factors for air toxins'' and urged EPA to support
efforts to develop an alternative approach to quantifying health
effects from air toxins that would yield more ``realistic'' estimates
of population impacts. This is a critical point given that EPA is about
to issue a number of residual risk standards for air toxins. Would you
support this effort to develop an alternative approach to quantifying
risks from air toxins that would result in more realistic estimates of
population risks?
Response. Yes. I believe that EPA should take steps to make sure
that its programs are based on the best possible estimates of real-
world exposure. I understand that, as part of the residual risk
program, EPA intends to conduct population-based risk assessments in
order to ascertain the full distribution of exposures and risks within
a population. EPA is already working toward developing alternative
methods to support such population-based risk estimates. I also
understand that EPA recently held a workshop to address this topic in
conjunction with the SAB. The Agency has committed to support followup
efforts to this workshop as well as additional efforts within and
outside the Agency. I am supportive of these efforts.
______
Responses by Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. Can you assure this committee that should you be
confirmed, clean air standards will be premised solely on sound
science?
Response. If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure that all actions
taken by the Office of Air and Radiation are based on sound science. As
you know, a recent decision by the Supreme Court made it clear that the
Agency may not consider costs when its sets national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). I can assure the committee that, if I am
confirmed, I will work to ensure that any actions related to the NAAQS
are consistent with this decision.
______
Responses by Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions from Senator
Lieberman
Question 1. One of the more important regulatory initiatives for
the air quality in my home State of Connecticut is the NOx SIP call,
which would greatly reduce the ozone pollution transported into
Connecticut from States to the West. Could you comment on your view of
the SIP call and your plans to enforce it?
Response. I believe that the NOx SIP Call represents a cost-
effective approach for improving air quality in many areas of the
Eastern United States. If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure that
the emission reductions associated with the NOx SIP Call are achieved.
My hope is that we will be able to work with the States to ensure that
they submit plans to achieve these reductions without having to resort
to Federal implementation plans. Although I believe that we will be
able to accomplish this goal, I would support the use of' a Federal
plan for any State that may refuse to complete an adequate final SIP
revision.
Question 2. Another problem of concern to the State of Connecticut
is the fuel additive MTBE, which is required under the Clean Air Act's
oxygenate requirement . Do you support giving States relief from the
oxygen mandate if it will not result in any environmental harm?
Response. I know that the use of MTBE has raised concerns about
contamination of drinking water and groundwater. Clean air and clean
water are equally important, and I do not believe that we should pursue
one at the expense of the other. The Clean Air Act has a specific
provision that allows EPA to waive the oxygenate requirement under
certain conditions. I support giving States relief from the oxygenate
requirement if they can show that these conditions are met. I would
also be open to legislative action to address the issue of MTBE.
Question 3. I have also been very interested in pursuing
comprehensive, multi-pollutant legislation to control emissions from
power plants. In our hearing on climate change 2 weeks ago, however, it
became clear that any such legislation must include a commitment to
reduce carbon or it will not provide the regulatory certainty that our
utilities need. Regrettably, President Bush's energy plan released
today only proposed regulating three pollutants. What approach would
you advocate?
Response. If I am confirmed, I will look forward to working with
the committee to develop comprehensive, multi-pollutant legislation to
control power plant emissions. I understand the need for regulatory
certainty for electric utilities. I support the President's position on
a multi-pollutant bill, and I believe that the Administration's
approach will provide the regulatory certainty needed.
Question 4. One issue that this administration must face is climate
change. In recent weeks, a number of Senators, including Senators
Stevens and Byrd, have expressed concern about this issue. Senator Byrd
even pointed out the need for mandatory commitments to reduce our
carbon emissions. Could you please comment on what approach you would
recommend we take on this critical issue.
Response. Like President Bush and Governor Whitman, I take the
issue of climate change very seriously. As you may know, the
Administration is now conducting a cabinet-level review to develop a
climate change policy that protects and the environment, consumers, and
the economy. I understand that the cabinet-level group is trying to
identify the policies that the United States should pursue domestically
and internationally. Governor Whitman is a member of the team reviewing
our policy options. The President has said that he is optimistic that,
by working constructively with our friends and allies through
international processes. we can develop technologies, market
incentives, and other innovative approaches to global climate change.
if I am confirmed, I look forward to participating in this important
effort.
The Office of Air and Radiation has a great deal of expertise in
several areas important to developing policy responses to the issue of
climate change, including: using voluntary programs to achieve energy
efficiency gains and the reduction of various greenhouse gases; doing
research to demonstrate more energy efficient vehicle technologies: and
using emissions trading programs that help lower the costs of achieving
environmental protection goals. I support these kinds of approaches, as
well as any others that the President may decide to pursue in regard to
climate change.
Question 5. I applaud the Bush Administration's decision to move
forward earlier this year with the implementation of new diesel fuel
and engine standards for 2007. The rulemaking was exhaustive and
inclusive and I believe has arrived at a resolution that will benefit
all interested parties. In that regard, I am concerned about any effort
to open the rule to review, especially in light of the need to provide
certainty for business planning, as requested by the affected
industries. Could you comment on your plans to implement the rule and
whether you have any plant to initiate a review of it?
Response. EPA remains committed to implementing the 2007 heavy-duty
vehicle and fuel standards--and to the environmental objectives that
they will achieve. The Agency has announced that it will seek an
independent review of progress made by the engine manufacturers and oil
refiners toward meeting the program requirements. Although EPA has not
decided what independent group will conduct the review, the Agency
anticipates that it will begin in mid-2002 and conclude by early 2003.
Question 6. I am troubled by the recent recommendation by President
Push in his National Energy Plan that the Attorney General review
existing enforcement actions regarding New Source Review to ensure that
the enforcement actions are consistent with the Clean Air Act and its
regulations.
The Clean Air Act defines ``modification'' as a physical change o?r
change in the method of operation that increases the amount of an air
pollutant emitted by the source. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7411(a). By regulation,
EPA exempted from the definition of ``physical change'' those projects
which are routine maintenance, repair and replacement. EPA historically
has analyzed the ``routine maintenance'' exemption by using a test that
assesses four primary factors--(1) the nature and extent; (2) purpose;
(3) frequency; and (4) cost of the proposed work. See Memorandum from
Don R. Clay, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
to David A. Kee, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region V (Sept. 9,
1988); Letter from Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, to John W. Boston, (Feb. 15, 1989). This approach was
upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. WEPCo v. Reilly, 893
F.2d 901 (7th Cir. 1990). EPA's more recent use of the same test in its
enforcement case against TVA also was upheld by the EPA Environmental
Appeals Board. Tenn. Valley Auth., 9 E.A.D. CAA Docket No. 00-6 (U.S.
Envtl. Prot. Agency, Sept. 15, 2000), EAB Final Order.
In view of this legal background, do you agree that EPA's
interpretation of the NSR provisions, and in particular, the routine
maintenance exception, as exemplified in the WEPCO and TVA cases, is a
correct interpretation of the Clean Air Act and applicable regulations?
Response. As you know, there is considerable controversy
surrounding this issue. The Agency believes that its interpretation of
the NSR provisions is a correct interpretation of the Clean Air Act and
the applicable regulations, and I have no reason to question this view.
As I understand it, however, some companies believe that EPA is
currently interpreting certain factors in a new and improper way. The
President has asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review this
issue in the context of certain cases, and I hope that DOJ will
complete this review very quickly. In the meantime, EPA and its co-
plaintiffs are continuing to litigate and to negotiate in the hope of
reaching appropriate settlements in these cases.
______
Responses by Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions from Senator
Clinton
Question 1. As some States move to phaseout MTBE, do you support
providing States with relief from the oxygen mandate under the Clean
Air Act in cases where such relief would provide both price relief at
the pump and improve the environmental performance of gasoline?
Response. The Clean Air Act has a specific provision that allows
EPA to waive the oxygenate requirement under certain conditions. I
support giving States relief from the oxygenate requirement if they can
show that these conditions are met. I would also he open to legislative
action to address this issue.
Question 2. Please provide an outline of the specific timelines and
emissions reductions that you would support as part of a multi-
pollutant bill. In addition, please describe those mechanisms that you
would support in legislation for achieving these emissions reductions
in a timely and cost-effective manner?
Response. The Administration has just started to put together a
multi-pollutant bill. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working to
develop of this bill and to securing its passage by Congress. As this
time, however, I cannot provide you with specific timelines and
emission reduction levels. I believe that the Administration's bill
will establish a flexible. market-based program (with appropriate
measures to address local concerns) to significantly reduce and cap
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury from electric
utilities. I believe that such reductions should he phased-in over a
reasonable time while providing market-based incentives such as
emission trading credits to achieve the required reductions.
______
Responses by Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Additional Questions from Senator
Corzine
Question 1. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld the 1997
air quality standards. Are these standards appropriate in your view?
And are you committed to implementing them?
Response. As you indicated, the Supreme Court recently affirmed the
Agency's constitutional authority to set these kinds of health
protection standards. However, the 1997 NAAQS for ozone and PM are
still under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit). The Agency is committed to
defending these standards in court and is preparing the way for their
implementation. Like Governor Whitman, I am supportive of these
actions.
The Agency may still need to respond to legal or policy issues that
may arise from the ongoing litigation in the D.C. Circuit. At a
minimum, EPA must still respond to the D.C. Circuit's remand to
consider whether ground-level ozone has a beneficial effect by
providing protection against UvB radiation. If I am confirmed, I will
work to ensure that EPA responds to this and any other issues raised by
the D.C. Circuit expeditiously and based on sound science. I will also
work to ensure that the Agency takes all actions that are necessary to
implement the NAAQS as quickly as possible.
Question 2. The Supreme Court decided in EPA's favor earlier this
year on the ``NOx SIP call''. Not all of the States have submitted
revisions for their State Implementation Plans, and the deadline is
approaching. Are you committed to preparing and implementing a Federal
Implementation Plan for States that fail to submit their own plans?
Response. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the emission
reductions associated with the NOx SIP Call arc achieved. My hope is
that we will be able to work with the States to ensure that they submit
plans to achieve these reductions without having to resort to Federal
implementation plans. Although I believe that we will be able to
accomplish this goal, I would support the use of a Federal
implementation plan for any State that may refuse to complete an
adequate final SIP revision.
Question 3. EPA's ``New Source Review'' actions against power
plants have been the subject of considerable controversy. Do you think
that these actions should continue? If you haven't yet studied the
specifics of the cases, 'can you explain the framework and criteria you
would use to evaluate the issue?
Response. I am aware that there is considerable controversy
surrounding these cases. As you anticipated, however, I have not
studied the specifics of these cases or the arguments made by the power
plants. I understand that these cases are continuing while the
Department of Justice (DO.!) reviews them in accordance with the
National Energy Policy Report. EPA career staff' recently met with
their counterparts at the Department of Justice to begin determining
the framework for the DOJ review. I believe that the review should be,
based on the law as written and on prior precedent in the area.
Governor Whitman recognizes that a lengthy review process could prove
problematic and has asked Attorney General Ashcroft to conduct his
review as expeditiously as practicable.
______
Latham & Watkins,
March 12, 1997
Office of Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center
Attention: Docket No. A-95-54
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
Re: Proposal to Establish NAAQS for Fine Particles
Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the Electronic Industries Association
(ETA), we hereby submit the enclosed comments on the Environmental
Protection Agency's proposal to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for fme particles. 61 Fed. Reg. 65638 (Dec. 3, 1996).
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact
me at 202-637-2287.
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey R. Holmstead of Latham & Watkins
______
Latham & Watkins,
March 12, 1997
Office of Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center
Attention: Docket No. A-95-54
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
Re: Proposed Interim Implementation Policy
Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the Electronic Industries Association
(ETA), we hereby submit the enclosed comments on the Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed Interim Implementation Policy on New or
Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 61 Fed. Reg.
65752 (Dec. 13, 1996). If you have any questions or need further
information, please contact me at 202-637-2287.
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey R. Holmstead of Latham & Watkins
______
Latham & Watkins,
March 12, 1997
Office of Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center
Attention: Docket No. A-95-54
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
Re: ANPR on Implementation of New or Revised NAAOS
Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the Electronic Industries Association
(ETA), we hereby submit the enclosed comments on the Environmental
Protection Agency's advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that
seeks comments on the future implementation of new or revised National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particles. 61
Fed. Reg. 65764 (Dec. 13, 1996). If you have any questions or need
further information, please contact me at 202-637-2287.
Sincerely yours,
Jeffrey R. Holmstead of Latham & Watkins.
______
March 12, 1997.
comments by the electronic industries association before the united
states environmental protection agency on the proposed national ambient
air quality standards for particulate matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Proposed
Rule
A-95-54
61 Fed. Reg. 65638
David Isaacs, Esq., Deputy General Counsel and Staff Director,
Environmental Affairs, Electronic Industries Association.
2Timothy I. Mohin of Intel Corporation,
Joe Downing III of Texas Instruments.
Chairpersons of the EIA Clean Air Working Group
Of Counsel:
Jeffrey R. Holmstead,
David A. Kass,
Latham & Watkins
______
March 12, 1997.
comments by the electronic industries association before the united
states environmental protection agency on the proposed rule for the
implementation of new or revised ozone and particulate matter, national
ambient air quality standards
Interim Implementation Policy on New or Revised Ozone and Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Notice of Proposed
Policy
A-95-38
61 Fed. Reg. 65752
David Isaacs, Esq., Deputy General Counsel and Staff Director,
Environmental Affairs, Electronic Industries Association.
Timothy I. Mohin of Intel Corporation,
Joe Downing III of Texas Instruments.
Chairpersons of the EIA Clean Air Working Group
Of Counsel:
Jeffrey R. Holmstead,
David A. Kass,
Latham & Watkins
March 12, 1997.
comments by the electronic industries association before the united
states environmental protection agency on the proposed rule for the
implementation of new or revised ozone and particulate matter, national
ambient air quality standards and regional haze regulations
Implementation of New or Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Regional Haze Regulations, Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A-95-58
61 Fed. Reg. 65764
David Isaacs, Esq., Deputy General Counsel and Staff Director,
Environmental Affairs, Electronic Industries Association.
2Timothy I. Mohin of Intel Corporation,
Joe Downing III of Texas Instruments.
Chairpersons of the EIA Clean Air Working Group
Of Counsel:
Jeffrey R. Holmstead,
David A. Kass,
Latham & Watkins
(March 12, 1997)
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The Electronic Industries Association (EIA) submits these comments
on the proposals by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to (I) establish new National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for fine particles, 61 Fed. Reg. 65638 (Dec. 13, 1996); (2)
revise the NAAQS for ozone, Id. at 65715; (3) adopt an ``interim
implementation policy'' relating to the new or revised NAAQS for fine
particles and ozone, Id. at 65752; and (4) seek comment on future
implementation issues relating to the new or revised NAAQS, Id.. at
65764. In these comments, EIA will not address EPA'5 proposal to
establish a new reference method and other requirements for monitoring
ambient levels of fine particles, Id. at 65780, but will address all
the other proposals that EPA published on December 13, 1996.
These comments were prepared by EIA's Clean Air Working Group,
which has the active participation of major U.S. electronics
manufacturers EIA is the oldest and largest trade association
representing the U.S. electronics industry. It is comprised of more
than 1,000 member companies that design, manufacture, distribute and
sell electronic parts, components, and systems for consumer,
commercial, military, and aerospace use. EIA has been involved in a
broad range of implementation and flexibility issues under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). Our focus has been on ensuring the compatibility of CAA
requirements with the hundreds bf routine process upgrades,
advancements, and innovations that an electronics or other high
technology manufacturer must undertake each year to compete in the
global marketplace, to control costs, to maintain quality, to meet
corporate pollution prevention goals, and to satisfy new regulatory
requirements.
EIA strongly supports the goals of the Clean Air Act and recognizes
the importance of setting the NAAQS at levels that will protect human
health and the environment. Over the years, EIA and its members have
worked cooperatively with EPA and with state and local governments to
develop and implement innovative programs that are designed to protect
and improve the quality of our nation's air, while at the same time
addressing the flexibility needs of the electronics industry? As
discussed further below, the technologically dynamic nature of the
electronics industry distinguishes it from other traditional
manufacturing sectors. For this reason, ETA has focused its advocacy
efforts on addressing the unique flexibility needs of its members. . As
part of this effort, ETA was pleased to participate in the EPA-
sponsored Pollution Prevention in Permits (``P4'') Pilot, which
resulted in the first cap-type permit for an electronics facility.
The American electronics industry is proud of its environmental
record and strongly supports measures needed to protect public health
and the environment. In this case, however, ETA has several serious
concerns about EPA's proposals to revise the ozone NAAQS and establish
new NAAQS for fine particles. It also has concerns .about the approach
that will be used to implement such standards if they are adopted.
ETA's views, which are discussed more fully in the body of the
comments, are summarized below:
Proposed Revisions to the NAAQS for Ozone
<bullet> EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
concluded that the proposed NAAQS for ozone would not be
``significantly more protective of public health'' than the current
standard, and that there is no ``bright line'' that distinguishes the
current ozone standard from any other standard under consideration.
CASAC letter of November 30, 1995. As a result, CASAC stated that the
selection of any specific standard for ozone is strictly a ``policy
judgment.'' Id.
<bullet> In making this policy judgment, EPA should consider the
costs of lowering the ozone standard. Under these circumstances,
nothing in the Clean Air Act precludes the Agency from taking costs
into account when setting the NAAQS. Indeed, where there is no
scientific basis for choosing one standard over another, we believe it
would be arbitrary and capricious not to consider the costs of
achieving alternative standards.
<bullet> EPA estimates that the imposition of all reasonably
available control measures would cost approximately $2.5 billion a year
and would only allow ``partial attainment'' with the proposed NAAQS for
ozone. The cost of control measures that would be required to reach
full attainment are almost certain to be much higher:
<bullet> The establishment of a new NAAQS would also impose
significant costs on state and local governments. EPA estimates that,
under the proposed standard, the number of ozone nonattainment areas
would roughly triple. This would impose an enorrnous burden on state
and local agencies, which would be required to go through a lengthy
planning process to gather data and develop programs to meet the new
standards.
<bullet> Although the electronics industry is not a significant
source of ozone precursors, many electronics manufacturers have made
key planning decisions based on the current NAAQS for ozone. For
example, many companies have taken steps to ensure that their
facilities will not be treated as ``major sources'' under various EPA
programs--an approach that helps to protect air quality while providing
the facilities with operational flexibility. A change in the NAAQS
standard has the potential to undermine this approach.
<bullet> Thus, lowering the ozone NAAQS would impose significant
costs on governments, businesses, and consumers, but would not result
in meaningful health benefits. Under these circumstances, EPA should
not lower the NAAQS for ozone. Specifically, EPA should either retain
the current ozone NAAQS or establish an equivalent standard with a
longer averaging period. If EPA decides to switch to a longer-averaging
period, it should select a standard that will not undermine the
programs that government agencies and businesses have developed to meet
the current standards.
Proposed NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF>
<bullet> EPA and its scientific advisors have acknowledged that
there is much uncertainty about the health effects of fine particles.
Based on the current record, it is not clear that the proposed NAAQS
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> is. necessary to protect the public health.
Indeed, in light of the uncertainty about fine particles, there may be
little or no public health benefit from the proposed NAAQS for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
<bullet> According to EPA, it will cost approximately $6 billion a
year to achieve even ``partial attainment'' with the proposed
standards. The cost of full attainment is likely to be much higher.
<bullet> Under these circumstances--where there are uncertain
health benefits and certain (and significant) costs--EPA should not
establish new standards for PM<INF>2.5</INF> at this time. Rather, the
Agency should retain the current PM standards until such time as
further research can address the significant uncertainties about the
health effects of fine particles. In this regard, we note that EPA is
seeking congressional funding for a major research program that is
specifically designed [t]o reduce the great uncertainty about PM's
health effects.'' Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1998.
Proposed Interim Implementation Policy
<bullet> The technologically dynamic nature of the electronics
industry distinguishes it from other traditional manufacturing sectors.
To avoid obsolescence, a typical electronics manufacturing facility
will undergo numerous chemical and equipment alterations in the span of
a single year and will install several completely new generations of
technology during its operational lifetime. In order to be competitive
in the global marketplace, an electronics facility must have the
flexibility to make these changes quickly.
<bullet> If EPA proceeds to establish an interim implementation
policy, the policy should be designed to preserve the operational
flexibility that the electronics industry and other quick-to-market
industries need to remain competitive internationally.
<bullet> Under EPA's proposed interim implementation policy, all
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment areas would automatically be
reclassified as ``serious'' nonattainment areas. Among other things,
this would lower the major source threshold in these areas from 100
tons per year to 50 tons per year. As a result, many facilities that
currently qualify as minor sources would become major sources and thus
would potentially be subject to a lengthy permitting process when
making physical or operational changes.
<bullet> Such an automatic ``buildup'' would not result in
substantial emissions reductions and should not be included in any
interim implementation policy.
Long Term Implementation issues
<bullet> If the Agency proceeds to revise the ozone NAAQS or
establish new NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, it should develop an
innovative and flexible implementation policy that will achieve cost-
effective emissions reductions without hampering operational
flexibility.
<bullet> Such a policy should be designed to spread the compliance
burden fairly among industrial, public, and governmental sectors. The
policy should not focus exclusively on private manufacturing
facilities.
<bullet> The implementation policy should not lower major sources
thresholds or otherwise expand existing permitting processes that could
prevent quick-to-market companies from making physical or operational
changes that are needed to respond to the changing demands of the
marketplace.
<bullet> Many states have developed so-called ``minor NSR''
programs that take into account the flexibility needs of the
electronics industry. These programs, which have been carefully crafted
to protect air quality while allowing flexibility, should not be
reopened under any long-term implementation policy.
<bullet> The nature of the electronics manufacturing process
results in high air flow volume with low concentrations of pollutants.
Under these circumstances, states have developed regulatory
requirements for electronics facilities that rely on pollution
prevention, work practices, and other environmental management
techniques to control emissions. Such programs should be left in place.
i. the proposed standards
A. EPA Should Base the Proposed Revision to the Ozone NAAQS on Sound
Science and Should Take Other Relevant Factors Into Account
EIA strongly supports the goals of the Clean Air Act and recognizes
the importance of setting the NAAQS at levels that will protect human
health and the environment. ETA also believes, however, that the Agency
must rely on sound science and widely accepted principles of public
policy when developing the NAAQS. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC), a group of scientific experts established by the
Clean Air Act and appointed by the EPA Administrator, has reviewed the
scientific data regarding the health effects of ozone, and has
concluded that the scientific evidence does not point to any specific
level as being appropriate for the ozone NAAQS. In reviewing the
scientific data regarding the health effects of ozone, CASAC concluded
as follows:
[T]here is no ``bright line'' which distinguishes any of the
proposed standards (either the level or the number of allowable
exceedances) as being significantly more protective of public
health. For example, the differences in the [estimated] percent of
outdoor children responding between the present standard [0.12 ppm
averaged over 1 hour] and the most stringent proposal (8-hour, one
exceedarice, 0.07 ppm) are small and their ranges overlap for all
health endpoints.
CASAC letter of November 30, 1995. Thus, there is no scientific
basis for concluding that the proposed ozone standard would necessarily
provide greater health benefits than the current standard. For this
reason, CASAC specifically stated that, within the range of standards
being considered by EPA, the selection of a specific standard was not a
scientific issue, but was strictly a ``policy judgment.'' Id. EPA
itself acknowledged this fact in the preamble to its proposal to revise
the NAAQS for ozone. See 61 Fed. Reg. at 65727.
In making this policy judgment, EPA should consider the costs of
lowering the ozone standard. EPA has historically taken the position
that, under the Clean Air Act, it may not consider the costs of
establishing the NAAQS, but must set them based solely on scientific
evidence about health and environmental effects.\1\ In this case,
however, CASAC has stated that the scientific evidence alone does not
point to any particular standard, and that the standard must. be based
on other policy considerations. Under these circumstances, nothing in
the Clean Air Act precludes the Agency from taking costs into account
when setting the NAAQS. Indeed, where there is no scientific basis for
choosing one standard over another, we believe that it would be
arbitrary and capricious not to consider the costs of achieving
alternative standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In support of this position, some commentators have referred to
the 1980 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Lead
Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980). This
case, however, addressed the issue of whether EPA is required to take
costs into account when developing NAAQS, not whether the Agency has
the discretion to consider costs if it so chooses. In Lead Industry,
the petitioner argued that the Clean Air Act required EPA to consider
costs when setting the NAAQS. Not surprisingly, the Court rejected this
argument. Although there is some language in the Lead Industries
decision indicating that EPA is precluded from considering costs when
setting NAAQS, this language is clearly dicta, and is not part of the
Court's holding. Neither this nor any other case has held that EPA
lacks the discretion to consider costs when setting or revising the
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has estimated that the cost of ``partial attainment' with the
proposed ozone standards would be approximately $2.5 billion per year.
See EPA Ozone Regulatory Impact Analysis (Ozone RIA). For at least two
reasons, however, this estimate significantly understates the likely
cost of the ozone proposal. First, the Agency was not able to identify
enough control measures to allow 24 of the projected ozone
nonattainment areas to reach attainment with the proposed standard, and
therefore did not include the full cost of reaching attainment in those
areas. In fact, according EPA's analysis, there are four cities (Los
Angeles, New York City, San Diego, and Bakersfield) where the control
measures identified by EPA would not be sufficient to attain even the
current standard. See Appendix A of the Ozone RIA.
Second, EPA's cost estimates only include the cost of actual
control measures, and do not include the planning and other costs that
would be borne by businesses and government agencies. These costs could
also be substantial. EPA estimates that, under the proposed standard,
the number of ozone nonattainment areas would roughly triple. This
would impose an enormous burden on state and local environmental
agencies, which would be required to go through a lengthy planning
process to gather data and develop policies and programs to meet the
new standards.
Although the electronics industry is not a major source of ozone
precursors, it would likely be adversely affected by the proposed ozone
standard. Many electronics manufacturers have made key planning
decisions based on the current NAAQS for ozone. For example, many
companies have taken steps to ensure that their facilities will not be
treated as ``major sources'' under various EPA programs. This approach
not only benefits the companies by ensuring that they will have
operational flexibility, but also benefits the environment by capping
potential emissions from these facilities. A change in the NAAQS
standard has the potential to undermine this approach and cause
significant disruptions in the electronics industry.
We understand the need to invest in clean air and a healthy
environment, and we do not object to any regulatory requirement simply
because of the burden that it may impose on our industry.
Notwithstanding the cost and potential disruption of the proposed
revision to the ozone NAAQS, EIA would support the proposal if it would
provide meaningful health or environmental benefits. But EPA's own
scientific advisors have concluded that the proposed ozone standards
would not necessarily provide such benefits. Under these
circumstances--where the proposal would clearly impose significant
costs on governments, businesses, and consumers but not necessarily
provide meaningful benefits--the appropriate ``policy judgment'' seems
clear. EPA should not revise the NAAQS for ozone as outlined in the
proposed rule. Rather, ETA believes that the Agency should either
retain the current ozone NAAQS or establish an equivalent standard with
a longer averaging period. As noted in the preamble to the proposed
rule, CASAC has indicated that a longer--averaging period would be more
appropriate for addressing the adverse health effects related to ozone
exposures. In addition, a longer averaging period may provide a more
stable standard that is less likely to force an area into nonattainment
based on unusual weather patterns. If EPA decides to switch to a
longer-averaging period, it should select a level (and an
implementation approach) that will not undermine the programs that
government agencies and businesses have developed to meet the current
ozone standards.
B. EPA Should; Not Establish New NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Until
Further Research Can Address the Major Uncertainties About
the,Health Effects of PM<INF>2.5</INF>
CASAC also conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific data
regarding the health effects of fine particles--i.e., airborne
particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less (PM<INF>2.5</INF>).
Based on this review, it concluded that there is much uncertainty about
the underlying science, and that a number of important questions should
be addressed before EPA proceeds to set a NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
In a letter dated June 13, 1996, CASAC advised the Agency that, because
of the judicial deadline for making a decision about whether to revise
the current PM NAAQS, CASAC did not have ``adequate time to analyze,
integrate, interpret, and debate the available data on this very
complex issue.''
EPA itself has recognized that there are substantial uncertainties
about the potential health effects of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. As part of the
Administration's recent budget proposal, the Agency has requested $26.4
million in order to conduct the research that is necessary ``[to reduce
the great uncertaii#y about PM'S health effects.'' Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 1998, p. 81 (emphasis added). According
to the budget proposal, this amount of funding is needed to support
research in three areas: ``(1) evaluating the relationship between
health effects and PM exposures; (2) determining the amount and size of
particles inhaled and retained in the lungs; and (3) investigating
biological mechanisms by which PM concentrations in outdoor air may
induce health effects and, in doing so, evaluating potential links
between PM exposures and health effects.'' Id.
In spite of these uncertainties, it might be appropriate to
establish a NAAQS for fine particles if it would be relatively
inexpensive to achieve such a standard. The Regulatory Impact Analysis
(MA) prepared by EPA, however, estimates that it will cost $6.3 billion
per year to achieve partial attainment with the proposed standard. EPA
PM Regulatory Impact Analysis (MA) at 7-8. As with the proposed ozone
standard, the Agency has not attempted to estimate the cost of full
attainment because ``it is not possible to estimate the costs of the as
yet unknown measures that will be required to allow residual
nonattainment areas to come into compliance.'' See Letter of Sally
Katzen, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, to Chairman Thomas Bliley, Jr. (February 14, 1997). Thus,
there is also significant uncertainty about the full cost of the
proposal.
The Agency has not yet been able to collect basic data regarding
PMG52.5 emissions, including what sources are responsible for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, what chemical components form PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the
atmosphere, and what steps will likely be needed to address
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions. In its proposed Interim Implementation
Policy, for example, EPA notes it cannot develop an implementation
policy for fine particulates ``until it is able to technically predict
and measure emissions of fine particles generated by individual sources
and better understand and estimate the formation and dispersion of
ambient fine particle concentrations in the atmosphere.'' 61 Fed. Reg.
at 65762.
EIA recognizes that absolute certainty should not be a prerequisite
for the imposition of environmental standards, and that EPA must often
move forward to protect public health in the face of unanswered
questions. In this case, however, there are enormously important
questions that must still be addressed, and the cost of moving forward
is very high. In light of the many questions surrounding fine
particulates, including the uncertainty about the health effects data
and the types of sources that are responsible for airborne
concentrations of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, ETA believes that the Agency should
not establish NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> at this time. EPA is under no
obligation to establish a new NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. It can comply
with the existing judicial deadline and the underlying requirements of
the Clean Air Act by reaffirming the current PM<INF>10</INF> standards
and taking the time needed to address the significant scientific
uncertainties about the potential health effects of fine particles.
Rather than setting a new standard for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, EPA should
follow the advice given by CASAC and ``implement a targeted research
program to address these unanswered questions and uncertainties.'' See
CASAC letter of June 13, 1996.
ii. implementation issues
A. The Electronics Industry Has Unique Flexibility Needs that Must Be
Addressed in Any Implementation Policy
The technologically dynamic nature pf the electronics industry
distinguishes it from other traditional manufacturing sectors. To avoid
obsolescence, a typical electronics manufacturing facility will undergo
numerous chemical and equipment alterations in the span of a single
year and will install several completely new generations of technology
during its operational lifetime.
In the electronics industry, the ability to bring a new product to
market rapidly is of paramount importance to the product's ultimate
success. Even a 1- or 2-week delay in a new product announcement or the
shipping of a new product can have serious effects on the product's
ultimate success. Each year, a typical electronics manufacturing
company may announce as many as several hundred new hardware products
in the United States alone. Obviously, these products cannot simply
appear on the customer's floors, but require new and modified
manufacturing processes, often with a completely new generation of
technology.
As a result, electronics manufacturing processes are in continuous
evolution. Roughly every 18 to 24 months, new generations of products
are introduced through implementation of new processes, and of these
processes, approximately one-third involve major departures from the
prior processes in terms of chemistries, equipment and/or chemical use.
Process alterations are essential to meet the competitive demand for
upgrades, advancements and innovations. To provide a concrete example
of the types of business challenges faced by both the electronics and
semiconductor manufacturers in our industry, EIA has undertaken an
informal survey of its members.
One EIA member, Intel Corporation, has analyzed its semiconductor
operations. This analysis demonstrates that beginning at startup, and
for each subsequent 5-year period that follows, a typical facility
using the latest process technology would:
<bullet> Introduce at least two new generations of technology,
which may occur either through constant alterations phased in over time
or by completely ``gutting'' the interior of the facility other than
the piping, ducts and other components which link the manufacturing
operation with the general facility services area.
<bullet> Make 30 to 45 process chemical alterations per year as
existing processes are refined and new processes are developed.
<bullet> Install 5 to 15 new equipment types and/or new processes
to meet technical needs that were identified at facility startup, but
for which at the time of startup, no equipment or process satisfying
the requisite specifications have actually been developed, constructed
and validated.
<bullet> Undertake hundreds of minor process ``tweakings,'' such
as an amendment in flowrate or temperature adjustments.
EIA has also gathered information from other members regarding the
types and frequency of routine process upgrades, advancements and
innovations made each year in typical electronics operations. The
results indicate that, in general, an electronics manufacturer will
undertake 100-3 00 alterations per year depending on the size of the
facility. Approximately one-quarter of these alterations involve the
installation of equipment, primarily in replacement or ``like-kind''
replacement situations.
To remain competitively viable, a U.S. manufacturer cannot afford
any significant regulatory delays prior to implementing process and
equipment alterations. Thus, any implementation policy for new or
revised NAAQS must take into account the following:
<bullet> The global competitive dynamics of our industry create
the economic reality that process alterations must be implemented
swiftly to retain existing markets and/or capture new markets. Thus, to
remain competitively viable, a U.S. manufacturer cannot afford any
significant regulatory delays prior to implementing process
alterations.
<bullet> Regulatory regimes that require permitting or other
environmental authorities to comprehend and catalogue each and every
process detail create inordinate administrative burdens for both
regulators and industry due to the ever-evolving nature of electronics
and semiconductor processes. Moreover, in many cases, such regimes are
simply incompatible with our industry's competitive need to implement
process changes in a swift, decisive manner.
In sum, regulatory flexibility--as defined by the ability to
undertake these routine changes without significant delay--is critical
to our industry's global competitiveness.
B. If EPA Revises the Ozone NAAQS or Sets New NAAQS for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, the Interim Implementation Policy Should Not
Reduce Operational Flexibility by Automatically Lowering Maj or
Source Thresholds
EPA has proposed an ``interim implementation policy'' that would
become effective when a new or revised NAAQS is finalized and would
remain in effect in an individual state until the state has developed
(and EPA has approved) a state implementation plan (SIP) designed to
meet the new NAAQS. For the most part, the proposed policy would simply
adopt a ``no backsliding'' policy that would keep all current programs
and requirements in place. In at least one key respect, however, the
proposed policy would go beyond this no backsliding principle. Under
the proposal, all ``marginal'' ozone nonattainment areas would
automatically be reclassified as ``moderate'' areas, and all moderate
areas would become ``serious'' areas. Among other things, this would
lower the New Source Review (NSR) major source threshold from 100 tons
per year (tpy) to 50 tpy in moderate areas that are reclassified as
serious during the interim period.
This change is likely to have a significant impact on many
facilities currently located in moderate nonattainment areas. Many
companies, including members of ETA, have diligently pursued a minor
source strategy since 1990, using careful strategic planning and, in
some cases, expensive pollution prevention and other control measures,
to ensure that their plants are not categorized as major sources. This
strategy has preserved operational flexibility for the facilities and,
at the same time, has yielded important environmental benefits by
capping potential emissions at these plants. By automatically lowering
the major source thresholds, the proposed interim policy has the
potential to undermine this minor source strategy.
Significantly, there is no evidence to suggest that lowering major
source thresholds will have an appreciable impact on reducing
emissions. In many areas, emissions of ozone precursors come primarily
from mobile and area sources. For example, 1996 emissions data compiled
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality shows that in
Maricopa County, Arizona, stationary sources are responsible for only
about 6 percent of VOC emissions and 5 percent of NOx emissions. The
rest of the VOC and NOx emissions in the county come from area and
mobile sources. In other areas, emissions of concern come primarily
from older, stable facilities that do not intent to make physical or
operational changes and therefore will not be subject to NSR. In these
areas, extending the NSR program to smaller stationary sources has
little or no potential to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. If EPA
proceeds to establish an interim implementation policy, the policy
should not include an automatic ``bump up'' that would lower major
source thresholds in certain areas. Rather, it should simply adhere to
the no backsliding principle.
C. If EPA Revises the Ozone NAAQS or Sets New NAAQS for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, it Should also Establish a Long-term Interim
Implementation Policy that Allows for Innovation and
Flexibility
EPA has taken the position that subparts 2 and 4 of part D of title
I of the Clean Air Act would not apply to the revised ozone and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, because those subparts were ``explicitly tied''
to the ozone and PM NAAQS that were in place when the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments were adopted. See 61 Fed. Reg. at 65753. As a result,
the Agency has announced that it will develop a new policy, including a
new classification scheme, to implement the proposed NAAQS. If EPA
takes this opportunity to move beyond the strictures of subparts 2 and
4, it should seek to develop an innovative and flexible implementation
policy that will achieve cost-effective emissions reductions without
hampering operational flexibility. Any such policy should ensure that
the electronics industry and other similar industries are able to carry
out necessary process changes without incurring regulatory delays. The
following implementation issues are of particular importance to the
electronics industry:
Major Source Permitting: EPA should not adopt an implementation
policy that relies on increasingly stringent major source thresholds
for purposes of New Source Review (NSR) or similar permitting programs.
As noted above, such an approach has little or no potential to achieve
significant emissions reductions, but could significantly limit the
operational flexibility that dynamic industries need to compete
effectively in the global marketplace. Many ETA members have diligently
pursued a minor source strategy since 1990, using careful strategic
planning and, in some cases, expensive control measures, to ensure that
their plants are not categorized as major sources. As a result, most
electronics facilities are not subject to major source NSR permitting
obligations, and are able to make physical or operational changes
without going through a lengthy regulatory process. An implementation
policy that adopts more stringent major source thresholds and thereby
brings smaller sources into the NSR program could wreak havoc on the
electronics industry by subjecting routine changes to NSR review.
Minor NSR: Electronics sources are typically regulated under SIP
permitting programs for minor sources (generally known as minor NSR)
and have relied on these programs to obtain controls and limitations on
their potential to emit, thereby avoiding major source status.
Historically, these minor NSR programs have also been important tools
for states to regulate sources with respect to attainment requirements.
Many states have fashioned their minor NSR programs in a manner that
recognizes the electronic industry's unique flexibility needs and the
lack of environmental significance of the industry's routine process
upgrades, advancements and innovations by allowing the use of blanket
registrations, targeted exemptions, and other similar measures. Any
change in these programs could disrupt the minor source strategy
employed by electronics manufacturers and could create regulatory
delays that would seriously hamper global competitiveness.
It is also important that any implementation policy be designed to
preserve the work that has been done to develop innovative cap-type
permits. These permits encourage pollution prevention and other
creative approaches for controlling emissions, while at the same time
providing the flexibility that electronics companies need to compete in
the global marketplace.
Emissions Controls: The nature of the electronics manufacturing
process results in high air flow volume with low concentrations of
pollutants. Under these circumstances, states have developed regulatory
requirements for electronics facilities that rely on pollution
prevention, work practices, and other environmental management
techniques to control emissions. Many states have fashioned their
``reasonably available control technology'' (RACT) rules for
electronics sources in a flexible manner that does not mandate specific
end-of-pipe control technologies. Moreover, the constant evolution of
the manufacturing process encourages an electronics manufacturers to
``build in'' emission controls as part of the planning process. Thus,
any change in the RACT rules necessitated by a revision to the NAAQS
could have serious flexibility implications for electronics
manufacturers.
Monitoring And Other Compliance Demonstration Approaches: As part
of the SIP revision process that will be necessary to implement any new
or revised NAAQS, states will be required to develop a ``comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources.''
Electronics sources present unique monitoring challenges due to the
high volumes of air and low levels of pollutants that typify the
manufacturing process. To date, states have been flexible in working
with the electronics industry to develop emissions data based on real-
world factors. Implementation of any NAAQS revision must be undertaken
with this same flexible approach to monitoring and compliance
demonstration.
Equitable Allocation of Compliance Burden: In addition to the
specific issues noted above, EIA also urges the Agency to adopt an
implementation policy that spreads the compliance burden fairly among
the industrial, public, and governmental sectors. The policy should not
focus primarily on private industrial sources for reductions of ozone
and PM precursors, but should seek cost-effective emission reductions
from the general public (including mobile sources and consumer
products) and from governmental sources as well. As noted above, mobile
and area sources are responsible for the vast majority of emissions in
many parts of the country. Any implementation policy should reflect
this fact and shOuld not require states and localities to focus undue
attention on other sources that contribute only marginally to
nonattairiment problems.
conclusion
ETA appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposals to
revise the NAAQS for ozone, to establish a new NAAQS for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and to develop implementation policies designed to
attain the proposed standards. EIA believes that EPA should either
retain the current ozone NAAQS or establish an equivalent standard
based on a longer averaging period. If EPA decides to switch to a
longer averaging period, it should select a standard that will not
undermine the programs that regulatory agencies and businesses have
developed to meet the current standard. EIA also believes that EPA
should not establish NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> at this time. Rather,
it should retain the current PM standards until such time as further
research can address the significant uncertainties about the health
effects of fine particles. If the Agency adopts either of the
proposals, ETA urges the Agency to develop interim and long-term
implementation policies that address the unique flexibility needs of
the electronics industry.
__________
Statement of Stephen L. Johnson, Nominee for Assistant Administrator,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental
Protection Agency
Introduction
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, and members of the
committee. I am honored to have the opportunity to appear before this
committee. Today I'm seeking your confirmation to serve as Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances at EPA. As a career civil servant for the last 20 years, it
is a privilege and a distinct honor to have the support of President
Bush and Governor Whitman to serve EPA as part of this Administration.
Given my background at EPA and in the private sector, I know the
importance of developing practical and reasonable solutions to our
environmental and public health challenges. As you know, pesticide and
chemical regulation can be a contentious subject, with many polarizing
issues. If confirmed as the Assistant Administrator, I will foster an
atmosphere with our stakeholders to ensure the Agency is accessible and
responsive. Given my scientific education and experience working within
the various scientific disciplines at EPA, I will aggressively promote
decisions that are based in sound science. I will also work to foster
consensus-based and common-sense approaches as we advance public health
and environmental protection. I look forward to working with Governor
Whitman and the EPA team to advance public health and environmental
protection.
Role of OPPTS
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
has a variety of programs that are at the forefront of protecting
public health and the environment, including regulating pesticides and
industrial chemicals, as well as promoting pollution prevention and
innovative partnerships with our stakeholders. We have enormous
challenges, but we also have a solid record of accomplishments.
During my tenure at EPA, pesticide and industrial chemical
regulation has changed dramatically. In the pesticides area, we are
implementing the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which is
strengthening food safety for all consumers, especially for infants and
children, from pesticides residues in food. We are almost 5 years into
FQPA implementation to ensure pesticides meet the tougher standards,
while at the same time ensuring that American agriculture has the tools
to continue to provide a healthy and abundant food supply.
Key Priorities
Despite the progress in recent years, important work remains. Our
regulatory oversight of pesticides, industrial chemicals,
biotechnology, food safety, and pollution prevention will continue to
require sustained and dedicated attention. Making sure our decisions
are based on sound science will require continued consultation with the
scientific community, peer review and highly trained professionals at
EPA. Meeting our commitments under Chemical Right-to-Know, FQPA,
protecting children from lead-based paint risks, bringing our
stakeholders together to develop workable solutions, and promoting
diversity in OPPTS, along with a host of many other issues, will
require continued attention.
My priorities include building on the solid progress under the FQPA
to reassess the older pesticides while ensuring an abundant food
supply. We expect to meet the statutory commitments, while using sound
science and extensive stakeholder involvement. OPPTS will further
streamline the process to license (register) new pesticides, while
seeking new ways to better involve our stakeholders in registration
decisions. My office has the further challenge of addressing the
cutting edge issues in biotechnology. I believe this technology holds
tremendous promise. However, we must continue to advance our science
and strengthen the regulatory system to ensure biotechnology products
meet rigorous health and environmental standards. Our goal is to assure
the public that there is a credible regulatory system in place to for
food safety and environmental protection.
On the subject of industrial chemicals, voluntary partnerships on
the High Production Volume chemical testing program and the Voluntary
Children's Chemical Evaluation Program will continue to be key
priorities. Reducing priority PBT pollutants, developing innovative
partnerships, managing the lead-based paint program, and the core TSCA
programs, will continue to be important areas of focus. I remain
committed to our many initiatives with States and industry to advance
pollution prevention approaches. Also, given today's global
environment, OPPTS will continue the important scientific and
regulatory work with the international community. I am firmly convinced
that these priorities demonstrate that a healthy environment and a
robust economy can go hand in hand.
Key Principles
As I address these and other priority issues, I want to mention my
personal operating philosophy and principles I will follow if confirmed
as the Assistant Administrator. They include commitments to: 1) Advance
the best science to support our regulatory decisions; 2) Open
communication and regular consultation with our stakeholders; 3) Build
strong and trusting relationships with all our customers, including
Congress, the States, the tribes, the industry, the scientific
community, other government agencies, farmers, the international
community, and the consumer advocate community; 4) Work to quickly
address the concerns of our stakeholders; 5) Establish partnerships
with all stakeholders to develop common-sense and innovative solutions;
6) Strengthen partnerships with other Federal agencies, particularly
with USDA, FDA; and HUD, NIOSH, and OSHA; and 7) Promote
professionalism, dedication and diversity within the OPPTS staff.
To advance these principles, I have already begun the process of
meeting with many stakeholders and employees in OPPTS to hear a variety
of opinions on the challenges we face and the future direction we
should forge. I believe these steps will strengthen partnerships to
ensure we meet the changing demands in safeguarding public health and
the environment.
Conclusion
I would like to close with two personal observations. My family has
a strong commitment to public service. My father served in the
Department of the Navy for more than 30 years. Growing up, I always
admired my father's government service. During college in the early
1970's, I began my public service as a GS-4 intern, and I am proud to
have worked at EPA for more than 20 years. This experience has led me
to have a deep appreciation and abiding respect for the importance of
reaching for excellence in government.
On another personal note, I have been fortunate to be able to
devote the majority of my career to public service and environmental
protection. For me, serving in the government, with the goal to help
all Americans and their families, has been a distinct privilege. When I
reflect on my past service and consider the future, I know that I will
face difficult, complex, and serious issues. I have confidence that
having a foundation in sound science and commonsense, coupled with
inclusive stakeholder participation, will result in quality decisions.
As Assistant Administrator, I hope to achieve national goals with
keen sense of the needs and realities of our individual families and
communities. I hope that my service will reflect positively on my
children, their everyday choices, and the community that each of us
live in.
I look forward to working with you on a bipartisan basis to advance
the mission of protecting public health and the environment on behalf
of the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from Senators
Smith and Reid
Question 1. We would like to ensure that all relevant stakeholders
are included in the initial planning stages of chemical testing
programs by Federal agencies, including the animal protection community
and pediatric health professionals. In your new role, what will you do
to ensure that the EPA consults with pediatric health professionals and
the animal protection community prior to the development of all
chemical testing programs and invites them to participate in their
development?
Response. I agree that it is vitally important to include a range
of stakeholders including the animal protection community and pediatric
health professionals--in the planning stages of chemical testing
programs, as well as the development of our regulations and other
initiatives that we have underway. I can assure you that my Office will
make every effort to conduct our business in an open, transparent
atmosphere that allows all of our stakeholders to be a part of the
process.
For example, the Agency is establishing a Federal Advisory
Committee (FACA) to help direct our efforts on the Endocrine Disruptor
program. We recently conducted a pre-FACA meeting with a wide range of
stakeholders to ensure that they are a part of this process. Similarly,
we held a series of open stakeholder meetings to gather input into the
development of our new Voluntary Childrens' Chemical Evaluation
Program. These examples are models of how we will interact with our
stakeholders now and in the future.
Question 2. Non-animal test methods can be more economical, more
reliable, more relevant than animal tests, and are also more humane. In
your new role, what will you do to promote the research, development,
validation, and acceptance of non-animal test methods?
Response. I am personally committed to ensuring that non-animal
tests are developed and validated as quickly as possible. My Office,
along with EPA's Office of Research and Development, are active
participants in the National Institutes of Health's Interagency
Coordinating Committee on Alternative Methodologies (ICCVAM), the
Federal entity responsible for the development and validation of non-
animal test methods. We are committed to the development and
integration of alternative methods that have been scientifically
validated and peer reviewed via ICCVAM and other recognized
authorities. Validation consists of ensuring that a new method is both
reliable and relevant for its proposed use. Such methodologies provide
both high quality data that are responsive to the Agency's needs for
protecting human health and the environment, and address animal welfare
concerns.
We are also committed to ensuring that when tests that include
animals must be used, that these tests are conducted in a way to reduce
the number of animals that must be used, reduce the pain and suffering
of the animals, and, whenever possible, replace animals in testing with
validated non-animal test systems. I will continue to follow the
principles of notification as implemented in the High Production Volume
Challenge program. . EPA reiterated these principles in an October 2000
letter to program participants which also indicated the commitment by
EPA's Office of Research and Development and the NIH to pursue research
that would lead to further protocols for non-animal tests.
You may also be aware that there have been a number of recent
developments on this subject, including the October 2000 EPA and NIH
sponsored ``International Workshop on In Vitro Methods for Assessing
Acute Systemic Toxicity.'' This workshop developed a number of
recommendations that range from in vitro protocols for possible use in
the near-term, to short-term research priorities, to long-term research
all aimed at reducing the number of animals used to assess acute
systemic toxicity. Recommendations coming out of this workshop include
an in vitro protocol that should allow fewer animals to be used in in
vivo acute toxicity tests. These recommendations will be put forward by
ICCVAM for all Agencies, including EPA, to consider in late May or
early June.
We are encouraged by the progress that is being made in this area
and will continue to work with animal protection groups as we move
forward in this very important endeavor. In fact, I have designated
Sherry Sterling from the OPPTS' Office of Science Coordination and
Policy to serve as liaison with animal protection groups to ensure that
their issues and concerns are considered.
______
Responses of Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
In 1996 Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA),
which modified the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) with
respect to regulation of pesticides.
The FQPA amendments of 1996 introduced several major new concepts
to pesticide regulation, namely, Aggregate Exposure and Cumulative Risk
and also set definitive timetables to re-evaluate all existing product
registrations with respect to these concepts.
Question 1. Could you provide an overview of the policies the
Agency developed in implementing the decisionmaking process using
aggregate exposure and cumulative risk and the process of developing
that policy?
Response. As Assistant Administrator, I am committed to FQPA
implementation that is led by sound science supporting decisions; open,
fair, and predictable regulatory processes; workable transitions for
pesticide users to new pest management strategies; and a process that
engages all stakeholders, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
farmers, and other pesticide users.
The development and implementation of aggregate and cumulative risk
assessments have closely followed these principles. EPA has used the
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to ensure that these policies are
guided by sound science. The SAP, an independent scientific peer
committee, has met numerous times to invite peer review on both the
aggregate and cumulative risk assessment methodologies. I will continue
to use the SAP to conduct rigorous scientific peer review on these
policies.
EPA has also formed and received valuable counsel from several
advisory committees, including the Food Safety Advisory Committee, the
Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), and the Committee to
Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT). The advisory committees
have brought together and continue to bring together a wide range of
stakeholders interested in pesticide policy and their discussions and
suggestions have played an important role in shaping both our public
participation process and EPA's approach to developing science policies
to address the scientific analysis as required by FQPA. As Governor
Whitman expressed in March 19, 2001, directive to OPPTS, it is the goal
for the Agency to conduct reregistration and reassessment activities in
an open and transparent manner, with ample opportunities for public
participation, and to make all regulatory decisions based upon
principles of sound science.
Question 2. What is the status of the re-evaluation of the existing
product registrations?
Response. EPA's pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
are critical parts of EPA's mission to safeguard public health and the
environment. Since the enactment of FQPA in 1996, EPA has reassessed
more than one-third of the 9,721 existing tolerances to ensure they
meet the standards in FQPA. In addition, EPA is now more than 70
percent complete with re-registering older pesticides. EPA remains on
schedule to meet the next statutory deadline to reassess 66 percent of
existing tolerances by August 3, 2002.
Question 3. Do you expect to review that policy or make any changes
to the policy?
Response. I intend to use a variety of means to engage the public,
USDA, Congress, and the scientific community in discussing the
decisionmaking process in development of important policies such as use
of aggregate exposure and cumulative risk. These will include working
with CARAT, either in full sessions or in workgroups, the Pesticide
Programs Dialogue Committee, the Scientific Advisory Panel, and other
affected stakeholders. Co-chaired by EPA's Deputy Administrator and
USDA's Deputy Secretary, CARAT is made up of stakeholders representing
a broad range of interests and backgrounds from across the country, and
provides a forum for these parties to advise EPA and USDA regarding
strategic approaches for pest management planning and tolerance
reassessment for pesticides as required by FQPA.
In addition, I will continue to bring science policy issues to the
Science Advisory Panel, an independent scientific peer review
committee, to ensure that rigorous, objective science continues to
guide EPA's decisionmaking. Further, EPA will continue to provide
transparent and predictable public review periods on all of EPA's
pesticide regulatory decisionmaking, through the Federal Register,
EPA's website, and all other available public fora.
Question 4. How will you work to involve the USDA more closely and
integrally in the EPA's regulatory activities that affect crop
protection?
Response. While EPA has primary responsibility for implementing the
Food Quality Protection Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
is a key player, especially in interacting with the agriculture
community. USDA provides critical support to obtain data that improve
EPA's risk assessments, assist pesticide users adjust to changes
regarding pesticide uses, and share information on alternative pest
management strategies. In addition, USDA generates important food
consumption and pesticide residue data. We also coordinate extensively
to improve the scientific foundation for pesticide risk assessment.
As Assistant Administrator, I will work extensively with USDA on a
variety of pesticide issues, including during proceedings of the
committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT), which is
helping to enhance interaction with stakeholders on key FQPA issues. I
want to emphasize that EPA will continue its efforts with USDA to
strengthen the communication with minor-use growers to identify
vulnerable crop-pest combinations and to coordinate efforts to involve
stakeholders in risk management decisions. I am especially looking
forward to working with EPA's new Counselor on Agriculture Policy,
Jean-Mari Peltier. I am confident that she will strengthen our working
relationship with USDA.
Question 5. Governor Whitman has announced creation of the position
of Counselor to the Administrator on Agriculture Policy. What role do
you see the Counselor on Agriculture Policy playing with your office?
Response. U.S. agriculture is directly affected by a wide range of
EPA issues, from the use of pesticides to handling of animal waste. The
Counselor to the Administrator on Agriculture Policy will act as an
ombudsman for the agriculture community and to strengthen interaction
with the agricultural community. This agriculture advisor, Ms. Jean-
Mari Peltier, will work closely with my office and throughout EPA to
assure that agricultural concerns are considered during EPA
deliberations; improve transparency of EPA activities with agriculture
and other affected parties; foster coordination between EPA and USDA;
and, maintain an awareness of congressional activities related to
agriculture and environmental protection.
______
Responses of Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from Senator
Reid
Question 1. As Assistant Administrator for the office responsible
for toxic substances, would you place a high priority on taking a hard
look at whether and how improvements can be made in the current
approach to protecting public health from exposure to toxic chemicals?
Response. I take seriously the responsibility to ensure that the
citizens of this country are protected from the potential hazards
associated with chemicals. Be assured that the Agency stands ready to
assist this committee if it is the will of Congress to consider
improvements to existing laws.
Question 2. As you know, I wrote to Administrator Whitman on March
15 urging her to sign a consent decree to put EPA on a schedule to
comply with critical pesticide protections for children. I was very
pleased when the Administrator signed the decree. Time and time again
since then, President Bush has reminded us of that action, highlighting
the pesticide settlement as great environmental achievement.
That achievement is only as good as the dollars the President is
willing to put behind it. This year, maintenance fees authorized under
the Federal Insecticides, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which
support reregistration of pesticides will expire. The administration
has not requested an extension of that authorization. At the same time,
your budget also shows a cut of 50 percent from last year's level for
the pesticide tolerance reassessment program.
Together the lack of a reauthorization of these FIFRA fees and the
cut in appropriated dollars for the pesticide tolerance program would,
by your own estimation, result in the loss of 200 employees who perform
this important work--25 percent of the pesticide program office. I
understand that the Administration doesn't view this as a cut because
it plans to finalize a proposed Clinton Administration rule to raise
the fees charged pesticide companies to do this work.
In view of the Administration's strong commitment to advancing
critical pesticide protections for children, and its reliance upon the
tolerance fee rule to effect that goal:
Question 2a. Will you oppose legislative riders seeking to limit or
prohibit EPA from finalizing or implementing the tolerance fee rule?
Response. EPA will work to secure to passage of the President's
budget that calls for implementation of the tolerance fee rule.
Question 2b. Will you recommend that the President veto legislation
that contains a rider to block the imposition of the tolerance rule?
Please provide a yes or no answer to this question.
Response. It is not possible to provide a yes or no answer at this
time, because I cannot speculate on the Administration's future
position on appropriations legislation. It is critical, however, that a
stable funding mechanism be identified.
Question 2c. In the event that the rule is blocked either by
congressional or judicial action, will you commit to fully implementing
the consent decree signed on March 19, 2001 in NRDC v. Whitman?
Response. Yes, EPA is committed to seeing that work go forward.
Currently the Consent Decree is undergoing public comment, and EPA will
review these comments.
Question 2d. In the event that the rule is blocked by either
congressional or judicial action, will you commit to fully implementing
the programs contained in your budget request including, but not
limited to: reassessing 9,721 pesticide standards to protect children;
priority reassessment for high risk pesticides on foods commonly eaten
by children; health effects research to measure the effects of
pesticides on children; exposure research to measure pathways of
pesticide exposure to children; and research to assess the cumulative
risks pesticides pose to children?
Response. EPA does not intend to implement any reductions-in-force.
The Agency is committed to implementing the tolerance reassessment
program on schedule.
If the tolerance fee as mandated by FQPA is not, in the opinion of
Congress, the best method of funding these critical pesticide tolerance
reassessment programs, we welcome the opportunity to work with the
Congress to explore other approaches to providing full, stable funding
for the program.
Question 2e. In the event that the rule is blocked by either
congressional or judicial action, will you seek additional appropriated
dollars or fees to support the above-mentioned programs rather than
institute cuts to other EPA programs?
Response. EPA does not plan to implement any reductions-in-force,
and it is important that a stable funding mechanism be identified.
Question 3. Would you support legislation to reauthorize the
maintenance fees FIFRA?
Response. EPA fully supports the President's budget, and such
legislation would be inconsistent with the current statutory mandate to
collect tolerance fees that is reflected in the President's Budget. The
important work of the tolerance reassessment program must continue, and
the tolerance fee rule provides for full, stable funding for the life
of the program. Any alternatives would need to offer similarly stable
and adequate funds.
Question 4. Soon industry will begin screening tests of high
production volume chemicals, under the voluntary program worked out by
EPA, Environmental Defense and the chemical industry. This is long
overdue. I think the public would be shocked to learn how little is
known about the potential dangers of chemicals before they are allowed
into commerce. My question is about the need for action beyond the HPV
program. Simply comparing requirements of TSCA with those under the
Food Quality Protection Act raises some seemingly obvious deficiencies
in TSCA. Has EPA prioritized chemicals for testing, so that those that,
based on current information, pose the greatest threat to health or
high risk of exposure will promptly be subject to analyses beyond HPV
screening? What about chemicals that new biomonitoring data reveals are
pervasive in the general population?
Response. As you likely know, the HPV Challenge Program, launched
in October 1998, will provide EPA and the public with Internet access
to screening level health and environmental effects data on over 2,100
widely used chemicals. The data made publicly available through this
collaborative effort will allow a diverse set of stakeholders,
including Federal, State and local governments and other interested
parties to set priorities for the collection of additional information.
This program will help the Agency prioritize higher order testing and
exposure analyses to ensure that risk assessment and management
activities focus on chemicals which may present the greatest risks. In
addition, EPA has established a Master Testing List (MTL) which serves
as an agenda to prioritize industrial chemical testing needs of EPA and
other Federal agencies. EPA also participates in the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECDs) HPV Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS) Program, which screens HPV chemicals to
evaluate the need for followup action from a global perspective. The
OECD process provides a platform harmonize chemical testing protocol
and laboratory testing, as well as opportunities for international
collaboration to share costs.
In December, 2000, EPA launched a pilot of the Voluntary Children's
Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP)that specifically used biomonitoring
data as a key parameter to identify and focus on chemicals to which
children would have the highest likelihood of exposure. EPA selected
chemicals for the first tier pilot which were found to be present
according to available biomonitoring data to be present in the human
body (adipose tissue/blood/breast milk and breath) and found by
existing environmental data to be present in a person's environment( in
food, drinking water, breast milk, air). The VCCEP was developed
through an extensive stakeholder involvement process. The program is
designed to ensure that health effects and exposure data are made
available in a phased (tiered) process. Development of such data will
allow EPA and others to evaluate potential health risks to children
associated with certain chemical exposures so that appropriate
mitigation measures may be taken. EPA will use available biomonitoring
data in setting chemical risk assessment priorities.
Question 5. Shouldn't the Congress and EPA be taking a hard look at
issues under TSCA beyond HPV testing, such as (1) whether there's a
need to more effectively set priorities to ensure prompt focus on
additional testing of chemicals that pose the greatest risk of exposure
or adverse health effects, and (2) whether the current standard and
mechanisms under TSCA for testing and restricting chemicals promote
timely and effective action necessary to ensure basic protections to
public health?
Response. As you know, TSCA was passed 25 years ago this year and
has not been reauthorized since that time. However, it does provide the
Agency with the authority necessary to assess new chemicals coming into
the marketplace, gather information on chemicals currently produced and
circulated in commerce, identify and require further testing on
chemicals that may pose risks, and control production and commercial
distribution of those chemicals which may pose an unreasonable risk to
health or the environment. In addition, TSCA requires chemical
companies to provide the Agency with all available scientific
information regarding health and safety concerns on the chemicals that
they produce.
Since the 1970's, EPA has implemented TSCA to ensure that new
chemicals are screened prior to their introduction into the
marketplace. Currently, EPA is reviewing about 1,200 new chemical
submissions a year. Last year, 700 were permitted to be sold in the
U.S. To address the most widely used chemicals in this country, EPA
launched the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge program in 1998,
which asked the U.S. chemical industry to voluntarily provide health
and safety data to the public on the almost 2,800 HPV chemicals. In
addition, the Agency established a voluntary initiative to gather
critical data on those chemicals that may pose a risk to children.
You may also be aware that the Agency has significant efforts
underway to reduce chemical emissions, to prevent pollution from the
outset, to design and provide safer chemicals from the start, and to
work with the chemical industry to find safer chemical substitutes.
The Agency appreciates the interest that this committee has in our
ability to ensure that chemicals are used safely in this country, and
we stand ready to work with you in addressing some of the challenges in
implementing TSCA.
______
Responses of Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Mr. Johnson, as you know, price discrepancies exist between the
United States and Canada when it comes to farm pesticides. The price
charged to US farmers is sometimes almost twice as much as what the
Canadian farmer pays. Generally, the Canadian and US pesticides are
almost identical and are manufactured by the same company, or related
companies. Recent surveys have placed prices in the US from 117 percent
to 193 percent higher than those in Canada for virtually the same
products.
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency was placed in the
position of being an accessory to this scheme because of the laws
governing the importation of farm pesticides. Although the EPA knew
there was not an environmental or health risk, the Agency had to stop
financially strapped farmers from buying a less expensive, but
identical, product from Canada. Montana farmers have been losing
between 10 to 40 million dollars per.
Question 1. First, what does pesticide harmonization mean to you?
Response. Pesticide harmonization means working with our
international trading partners to promote consistency in the various
regulatory and scientific requirements. These efforts help improve
trade, regulatory efforts, and avoid unnecessary duplication of
efforts. Harmonization examines the methods and practices used to
regulate pesticides in various countries, while working toward
converging the various approaches as appropriate. The purposes are to
minimize potential disruptions to trade, develop consistent regulatory
and scientific requirements, support the principles of sustainable pest
management, and maintain high levels of protection for public health
and the environment.
Specifically, a current example is the Technical Working Group
(TWG) on Pesticides under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). The TWG has been successful in minimizing regulatory hurdles/
impediments and creating a level playing field among NAFTA countries.
This work has helped jointly register pesticide products in both
countries by minimizing regulatory burdens and promoting consistent
regulatory requirements, consequently eliminating potential barriers to
trade. The work under the TWG has resulted in successful collaboration
to jointly register seven new pesticide products between Canada and the
U.S.
Question 2. What actions need to be taken to have cross border
availability of pesticides and what would the timeline look like?
Response. As you know, EPA's legal authority over pesticides is to
ensure they can be safely used; its authority does not cover pricing.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
requires the registration of a pesticide before it can be sold and
distributed in the United States.
EPA has worked very closely with Congress, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, State officials, registrants, and growers, to help solve
the problems U.S. farmers may be experiencing as a result of pricing
differences. Over the years the Agency has explored a variety of
administrative actions to help solve this potential problem. While
these administrative action are helpful, they have not resolved this
issues, and EPA will continue to work within our current authorities.
One example that the TWG is working to develop is a NAFTA label. This
label could help ensure equal access to pesticide products in the
different countries.
However, to fully and effectively address this problem, I believe
that legislation is needed because there does not appear to be adequate
administrative or regulatory solutions. I will continue to work with
Congress, U.S. Department of Agriculture, State officials, registrants,
and growers, in order to resolve this problem, and to assure protection
of human health and the environment.
Question 3. Legislation was introduced--legislation that was
drafted with the technical help of the EPA I might add--to prevent the
agency from being used in this manner again. Unfortunately, the
legislation was not passed. Thus, the Agency, and our farmers, are
going to be in the same position again this year, and the Agency will
be once again be used to fix the prices our farmers pay. Legislation to
solve this problem has been introduced again this year.
Do you support this type of legislation?
Response. I understand there have been various legislative
proposals introduced in the Congress to solve this problem. EPA stands
ready to work with Congress on possible legislative solutions that
effectively address this potential problem.
Question 3a. If legislation fails to pass Congress again this year,
how would you solve this problem?
Response. There are no apparent administrative or regulatory
remedies. Nonetheless, EPA will continue to work with all stakeholders
to use our current expertise to help address the situation.
______
Responses of Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from Senator
Wyden
In Oregon, my pear producers are facing record low prices--in part
due to the importation of pears from Chile. I am concerned about the
health quality of fruits and vegetables imported into the U.S. As you
may know, I began my career in public life as an advocate for the
elderly when I helped found the Oregon Gray Panthers, and I currently
serve on the Senate Special Committee on Aging. The reason I bring this
up is because contaminated fruits and vegetables affect those with weak
or impaired immune systems, usually Seniors and children, more readily
than they affect you or me.
Question 1. What work can you do with the FDA and APHIS to assure
that imported fruits and vegetables are meeting the strict standards
you, in the EPA, have set for pesticide use for our own crops? I
believe that it is very important for you all to be working closely
together and I would like your assurance that you will make a concerted
effort to coordinate your office with those others so the American
people can be assured that their food is safe.
Response. I am will continue to support the very important work of
the EPA, FDA and USDA in overseeing the integrity of imported fruits
and vegetables and other treated foods. As you may know, EPA licenses
pesticides and establishes a legal residue limit on foods and feed, and
provides FDA and USDA with the analytical methods used for monitoring
these residue limits on imported fruits and vegetables. I also believe
that regulatory harmonization plays an important role to ensure safe
food and a level playing-field with our trading partners. I expect to
encourage our current collaborative work with FDA and USDA, expanding
them where they need it. I will work with both to see that we
communicate clearly, and I will encourage the important monitoring
efforts that need to be done to assure that imported food is safe.
Question 2. I am concerned that the EPA budget favors the re-
registration of pesticides, which is good if you are a large chemical
company, but decreases funding for tolerance reassessment work, the
kind of scientific work needed to protect the seniors I just referred
to. This is exactly the sort of bad budgeting that will lead to a break
down in the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. I need
your assurance that as Administrator of this important program you will
do everything you can to make sure that the science is done so that
people are protected and farmers have fair warning as to the pesticides
they will be able to use.
Response. I hope to build on the concrete steps with USDA and the
agricultural community to ensure our decisions are sensitive to the
special needs of farmers. I believe important work remains with USDA to
involve people throughout agriculture in the decisionmaking process so
there are not any surprises as we implement FQPA. When there are risks
that must be addressed, EPA will work with USDA to get the message out
so that farmers can plan accordingly to develop a successful transition
to safer pest control techniques. The ingenuity and talent in
agriculture should continue making strides toward using safer
pesticides, fostering Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, and
reducing the use of high-risk pesticides. Together, we can develop
smarter solutions that protect human health and the environment, while
maintaining the strength of the U.S. agricultural industry which allows
us to enjoy the safest and most abundant food supply in the world.
______
Responses of Stephen L. Johnson to Additional Questions from Senator
Clinton
Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned a commitment to
strengthening partnerships with USDA and FDA. I am interested in EPA
strengthening its partnerships with other agencies as well, including
CDC and NIH. I am concerned about the increasing occurrence of disease
clusters around the country, and the potential links between these
clusters and certain environmental factors. If you are confirmed, would
you work to help build stronger partnerships among EPA, CDC, and NIH--
and with industry, public health advocates, environmental interests,
and other stakeholders--to help improve our understanding about how
certain environmental factors may impact human health?
Response. Yes, as stressed in my testimony, I will place a high
priority to strengthen our partnership with our stakeholders, including
our Federal partners and all our stakeholders. I believe that working
together with everyone at the table, providing input and advice, is
critical to help effectively address the public health and
environmental challenges we face. I agree that it is important to
improve our partnerships that will further the understanding of
environmental factors and public health. I know that there are a large
number of research projects already underway to investigate possible
health or environmental problems possibly linked to environmental
factors. This work is coordinated by the Agency's Office of Research
and Development, but regularly help shape priorities and direction. I
am committed to seeing that our partnership with these research
agencies are strong and fruitful.
Question 2. I am pleased that EPA is working to ensure that our
food supply is safe, that the pesticides, insecticides and other
chemicals we use to grow an abundant food supply are safe, effective,
and used appropriately. But I am also concerned that U.S. farmers not
be inappropriately burdened and put at a disadvantage when it comes to
farmers overseas who may not be held to the same, high standards as
U.S. farmers and whose produce and commodities, as a result, may not be
of the same quality and safety. If confirmed, will you work to
strengthen partnerships with the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, the Commerce Department, and others that are involved
in agricultural trade issues?
Response. As global trade continues to expand, it is critical for
EPA to strengthen its relationship with other Federal agencies,
including USTR and Commerce, and continue its participation in
international pesticide fora that promote the harmonization of
regulatory requirements and procedures for scientific assessments. For
many years, EPA has supported a substantial program on harmonization of
pesticide regulatory systems with our NAFTA trading partners. This
involves close collaboration with other U.S. Government agencies,
including USTR, USDA, and FDA. In addition, EPA participates in other
international arena that promote regulatory harmonization as well as
the establishment of international limits for pesticides on food.
I consider international regulatory harmonization to be an
important way to enhance international trade. Our ability to promote
fair trade through maintaining health and environmental standards will
benefit U.S. farmers, consumers, and will require effective
coordination with all agencies concerned.
__________
Statement of James L. Connaughton, Nominated to be a Member of the
Council on Environmental Quality
Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to appear before you and the
distinguished members of the committee. I am both grateful and honored
that President Bush has nominated me to be a Member of the Council on
Environmental Quality (``CEQ'') and, if confirmed, to appoint me as
chairman.
When it enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'')
and created CEQ over 30 years ago, Congress declared that it is the
``continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with
State and local governments, and other concerned public and private
organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including
financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to promote
the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man
and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans.''
Senator John Chafee, one of the greatest environmental statesmen of
the Senate, described this as a ``tall order, but an important one.'' I
agree, and fully embrace NEPA's broad policy objective. It is why I
joined the environmental profession. It is why I have focused my legal
practice on the most challenging matters of environmental policy and
the promotion of innovative approaches to environmental protection. The
commitment to responsible environmental stewardship is a family matter
in my household. My wife Susanna and I are constantly amazed by our
daughter Grace's budding passion for nature and conservation. Every day
my son Spencer says ``O.K. Daddy, give me an environmental issue,'' and
then earnestly and confidently discusses how to address it. Their
passion and concern reinforces my own commitment.
I therefore look forward with great enthusiasm to leading CEQ in
its core mission. First, to provide objective, well-informed, and
realistic advice to the President, his advisers, and the Cabinet about
the future direction of environmental policy. Second, to coordinate the
implementation of environmental programs and resolve policy disputes
among Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local government, and
private citizens. Third, to promote a balanced decisionmaking process
that accounts for the views of all affected parties.
I would like to highlight three aspects of my background that are
particularly relevant to this nomination. The first is the strength of
my commitment to serving the public interest. I have exceptional role
models, beginning with my father. With the unflagging support of my
mother, he spent over 30 years as a clinical professor of child
psychiatry working to improve the lot of children and families, often
in the most desperate of circumstances, in Baltimore's inner city. I
will count myself fortunate if I can bring to government service even a
fraction of the decency and dedication to the public good that my
father demonstrated every day of his career. I also will be guided by
the high standards of public service set by my mentors at the firm who
previously served both Republican and Democratic presidents and
Governors with distinction.
Second, I am a strong proponent of searching for and harnessing the
power of consensus in meeting shared environmental goals. I have had
the privilege of traveling the world helping to create what is known as
the ISO-14000 series of international environmental standards. These
standards promote effective, results-oriented environmental management
and responsible environmental communication. They reflect the consensus
of hundreds of dedicated professionals from industry, environmental
organizations, consumer organizations, government and academia, from
the United States and over 50 other countries. Tens of thousands of
organizations around the world already are quietly and efficiently
adopting these standards to address the environmental consequences of
their operations. Remarkably, participation in this process and
implementation of these standards is entirely voluntary. I have seen
first hand the dramatic results that such voluntary, market-driven
action can achieve. It is faster, it is cheaper, and it works.
Third, I am a forceful advocate and practitioner of environmental
stewardship where it matters most at the source. I have spent much of
the last 4 years traveling the country helping companies implement
``ISO-14001,'' the international environmental management system
standard. From Oklahoma City, Oklahoma to Ocala, Florida, from Detroit
Michigan to East Liberty, Ohio, from Windfall, Pennsylvania to
Kingstree, South Carolina, I have worked with business managers and
operators on the factory floor, showing them how to integrate
environmental obligations into their day-to-day operational practices
and long term business planning. Their efforts are predicated on three
fundamental commitments: compliance, prevention of pollution, and
continual improvement. These hard-working people are the nation's front
line in environmental protection. We must do what we can to capitalize
on their energy, unleash their creativity, and remove obstacles to
their success.
President Bush has encouraged Americans to join him in renewing our
commitment to protecting the environment and leaving our children and
grandchildren with a legacy of clean water, clean air, and natural
beauty. Embarking on the 21st century of environmental quality requires
not only reinforcement of what is working, but also the zealous
application of new ideas and methods.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to advancing NEPA's goal
of ensuring productive harmony between man and nature, through a
constructive dialog with Congress, with Federal, State, tribal and
local government agencies, and most important, with the public whose
trust we all hold.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of James L. Connaughton to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. What are you views on Natural Resource Damages? What
are some of the positions you've taken in the past on this issue?
(Given the number of Superfund sites in Montana, and how much they
cost, this is relevant.)
Response. Some of my personal, essentially academic views on
natural resource damages are set out in Evaluating the Present Natural
Resource Damages Regime: The Lawyer's Perspective, in Natural Resource
Damages R. Stewart, J. Connaughton & S. Steel, eds. and contributors,
National Legal Center for the Public Interest (Fall 1995).
Apart from this, I have not taken personal positions, but have
represented the views of various clients in:
<bullet> discussions with Congress, the Clinton Administration,
and representatives of State natural resource trustees, as part of
Congress' consideration of legislative reform of certain aspects of
CERCLA's natural resource damages liability regime mainly during the
104th and 105th Congresses;
<bullet> comments to the Department of Interior and the National
Oceanographic Administration on proposed natural resource damages
assessment rulemakings; some of these comments were addressed in the
final rulemakings, others were not addressed;
<bullet> petitions for review before the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals supporting certain aspects of natural resource damages
assessment rulemakings and opposing other aspects of such rulemakings;
some of these arguments were accepted by the court, others rejected in
General Electric Co. v. United States Department of Commerce, 128 F. 3d
767 (D.C. Cir. 1997) and Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. United States
Department of the Interior, 88 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
My guiding philosophy in all of these matters has been to refocus
the liability and damages assessment process in a manner that promotes
settlements that achieve reasonable restoration in a timely manner,
while retaining fundamental due process rights of the parties involved.
Question 2. Mr. Connaughton, what are your views on the NEPA
process?
Response. As indicated in my written and oral statements to this
committee, I strongly support the objectives of NEPA. NEPA has served
the American people and the environment well. However, through my
discussions with committee members and conversations with various
people who deal with NEPA, I am aware that concerns have been raised
about certain NEPA processes or certain aspects of NEPA's
implementation. I would be interested? in learning more about the
concerns that have been raised and work toward continual improvement of
NEPA implementation.
Question 3. Are you supportive of reinstating categorical
exclusions for small projects, particularly small timber sales and
stewardship projects in our National Forests? Will you be helpful in
making this happen?
Response. I am not familiar with the details of this proposal. If I
am confirmed, I would be happy to review this subject and discuss it
with you further.
______
Responses of James L. Connaughton to Additional Questions from Senator
Reid
Question 1. As a member President Bush's transition team at the
EPA, you were involved in distributing a questionnaire to organizations
and individuals interested in the work of the EPA. Who received those
questionnaires? What information was gained by the transition team from
the questionnaires? How was the information used? How will you use that
information if you become a member of CEQ?
Response. The creation and distribution of the questionnaire was
handled by an advisory group coordinator who worked in a different part
of the transition operation. I was indirectly involved with respect to
reviewing a draft of the questionnaire and suggesting the names of
individuals for the outside advisory group to whom the questionnaire
would be sent. I do not have either a copy of the questionnaire or the
list of individuals ultimately selected for the advisory group, but I
believe both were published during the transition. As I recall, the
questionnaire included a short, fairly open-ended set of questions
eliciting advice from advisory group members to the new EPA
Administrator concerning management and policy issues that she may
encounter during her time in office. The advisory group members
submitted their responses to the advisory group coordinator, who then
compiled the responses into binders and provided them to Governor
Whitman for her reference upon officially taking office after
inauguration. I have made no decision at this time whether or how to
use the information from the questionnaires, if I become a member of
CEQ.
Question 2. Could you provide details on what you and this
Administration see as CEQ's role in advising and forming environmental
policy?
Response. As indicated in my written and oral statements to this
committee, I expect CEQ to continue to fulfill the statutory
responsibilities established for CEQ by the National Environmental
Policy Act (``NEPA''). These include three core functions: First, to
provide objective, well-informed, and realistic advice to the
President, his advisors, and the Cabinet about the future direction of
environmental policy. Second, to coordinate the implementation of
environmental programs and resolve policy disputes among Federal
agencies, State, tribal, and local government, and private citizens.
Third, to promote a balanced decisionmaking process that accounts for
the views of all affected parties. I am also aware that Congress has
given CEQ a variety of specific responsibilities established by various
statutes and that CEQ also has a variety of specific responsibilities
established by Executive Orders. As I have not been confirmed, I am not
in a position to articulate further detail concerning the
Administration's plans for CEQ. I understand that key aspects of this
planning await CEQ having a confirmed chairman in place.
Question 3. How will the Council deal with other agencies within
the Administration?
Response. If confirmed as a member of CEQ, I look forward to the
Council working quite constructively with the other agencies within the
Administration. The specific mechanics of such interactions will be
established when CEQ professional staff have been hired and key sub-
Cabinet positions have been filled in the other Departments.
Question 4. During her confirmation hearing then-Governor Whitman
testified that Federal facilities should be subject to the same
environmental requirements as the private sector. What are your views
on CEQ's role in ensuring that Federal agencies actually do comply with
the letter and spirit of environmental laws? As you know, there are a
number of Federal facilities in Nevada, and in neighboring States which
impact Nevada, and there are very real concerns about whether agencies
are disclosing emissions that may effect surrounding communities, and
potential health effects associated with releases from those
facilities. EPA and other Federal agencies, DOD for one, do not always
agree on what is required, or whether requirements have been met. How
can CEQ ensure that all Federal agencies are responsible environmental
stewards?
Response. NEPA's broad mandate contemplates a general role for CEQ
with respect to contributing to Federal facility compliance. The nature
and extent of CEQ'S role, however, is a matter for decision within the
Administration. If confirmed, I would expect to be closely involved in
such a decision. I will bring to those discussions my prior experience
in environmental management, compliance assurance, prevention of
pollution, and resource optimization. I will also bring my experience
with incentives and disincentives to improved environmental performance
and responsible stewardship.
NOMINATIONS OF THE 107th CONGRESS,
FIRST SESSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 9:54 a.m.
in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M.
Jeffords (chairman of the committee) presiding.
CONSIDERATION OF THE NOMINATIONS OF DAVID A. SAMPSON, ROBERT E.
FABRICANT, GEORGE TRACY MEHAN III, JUDITH ELIZABETH AYRES, AND DONALD
R. SCHREGARDUS
Present: Senators Jeffords, Smith, Inhofe, Bond, Voinovich,
and Chafee.
Also present: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Congressman
Martin Frost.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. We will now open the nominations hearing.
Welcome to all the nominees and their families. I am sure
you are very proud to be here this morning.
Before recognizing members for opening statements, I would
like to ask each of you to introduce your families who are here
today as you come to the forefront here.
First, we have Mr. Sampson. Mr. Sampson, do you have
members of your family with you?
Mr. Sampson. Yes, I do. I have my wife, Karen, and my twin
8 year-old sons, John David and Matthew Nicholas, my parents,
Paul and Joy Willis, and my sister Cheryl, and her son Jacob.
Senator Jeffords. Senator, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we also have
the Congressman who represents Mr. Sampson's district,
Congressman Frost.
Senator Jeffords. Fine. Yes. Please be seated.
Senator please proceed.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for
recognizing me to introduce my constituent from Texas for the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development
position. I have known Mr. Sampson for a long time. My husband
and I have both worked with him in different capacities, and I
cannot think of anyone more qualified for this position than he
is.
He is president of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce.
Arlington is one of our fastest growing suburban areas in
Texas. It is located between Dallas and Fort Worth, and it has
been one of our fastest up and coming cities for a long time.
It is also the home of the Texas Rangers.
I want to say that Governor Bush appointed Mr. Sampson to
be vice chairman of the Texas Strategic Economic Development
Planning Commission in Texas because he wanted someone who
would look at all the regions of Texas and help them achieve
their highest economic potential. He did accomplish this by
putting forward a 10-year economic development plan for Texas.
He subsequently chaired the Texas Council on Workforce and
Economic Competitiveness. This experience gave him the
understanding of the need to integrate economic and work force
development efforts, a more efficient use of both sets of
resources.
He is certainly a hard worker, but he has one added
advantage that I have assured him he will draw on in addition
to his economic development experience, and that is he is an
ordained minister. Now I told him in Washington he might need
that more than all of the other experience that he has had.
But seriously, I think that his breadth of knowledge and
experience will bring his skills to the United States that he
has used so effectively for Texas. And I am pleased to be here
for him today.
Senator Jeffords. Congressman Frost?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN FROST, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Senator, and other members of the
committee. It is my pleasure to be here with David Sampson and
to lend my support to him for this very important position.
Arlington, Texas is the largest population center in my
congressional district. David served as the president of the
Arlington Chamber of Commerce for 7 years. I worked very
closely with him on economic development issues. Arlington is
represented by two Members of Congress, one Republican, Joe
Barton, and myself, a Democrat. I can tell you that David
Sampson was extraordinarily good to work with. He always
approached matters of economic development on a bipartisan
basis, was extremely effective, extremely cooperative, and I
cannot think of any better person in the country for this
particular position than the nominee that is sitting to my
right and is appearing before this committee today.
Senator Jeffords. I thank you for your excellent statements
and excellent recommendations. I appreciate your being here.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. We will move on to the other nominees who
will be before us.
Mr. Fabricant, welcome. Do you have members of your family
that you would wish to introduce?
Mr. Fabricant. Yes, I do. I would just like to introduce my
wife, Amelia, and my three children, my daughter, Enrica, she
is 5 years old, and my youngest son----
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. I see them waiving back there. They have
got good political waves. They are going to go a long way.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fabricant. I would also like to thank my parents for
coming here, Robert Fabricant and Jacqueline Fabricant. And I
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Mehan, welcome to the committee.
Please introduce any members of your family that may be
present.
Mr. Mehan. Thank you, Senator. I am happy to have here
representing all seven of my children and my wife, my oldest,
Meg, Margaret Elizabeth, who is up from Charlotte. We are under
strength today, but I think she will handle the duties.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. We welcome you to the
committee.
Ms. Ayres?
Ms. Ayres. Good morning.
Senator Jeffords. Good morning. We are pleased to have you
here. Do you have anyone you would like to introduce?
Ms. Ayres. I do. My family was able to come in from
California. My husband, Jack Burke, and our daughter, Coventry
Ayres Burke. And then I am fortunate to have extended family
here able to come; Julie and Joe Nisonger, Dr. Steve Peters,
and Robert Phiffer.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Pleasant to have you with us.
Mr. Schregardus, welcome.
Mr. Schregardus. Good morning, Chairman. Thank you for this
opportunity. I have brought with me today my daughter, Sarah
Schregardus, back here. I look forward to the opportunity to
speak with you this morning.
Senator Jeffords. Fine. Well thank you all. I welcome you
to the committee. We want to be expeditious and try to make
sure that all of you get to your working stations as soon as
possible. However, we would of course like to have your opening
statements.
We will go back and start with Mr. Sampson.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. SAMPSON, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Sampson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith, and members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you this morning. I am very grateful to Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchinson and Congressman Frost for their kind introductions,
and to you for the warm welcome you have given me and my
family. My family is very excited about the prospect of moving
to Washington. It may interest you to know that when the
President first announced his intent to nominate me, my son,
John David, was excitedly telling his classmates about the fact
that we had been asked to come up here, but he made sure to let
his classmates know that it was not for certain that we were
moving yet. He said, ``My Dad still has to be confused by the
U.S. Senate.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sampson. I hope that he was not being prophetic but
merely had a slip of the tongue.
Senator Jeffords. Let me interrupt you. I think some of my
members would like to make some statements before we get
moving. I am sure they have other things that may have to take
them away. So why not start with Senator Smith, do you have a
statement, or you can recognize as you see fit.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let
me thank you for bringing these nominations up promptly. In the
years during my tenure as chairman with a different
Administration, we brought the nominations through promptly,
and I think, given the disruptions that occur as people wait
and anticipate these positions, it is a disruption if there is
a delay. And so I appreciate your promptness here.
There is one who is not here, Jeff Holmstead, who is the
President's nominee to head EPA's Air Office. He has been
considered by the full committee and his nomination is still
languishing. I would encourage you to do what you can to move
that forward.
I want to apologize to the witnesses because I will have to
leave at around 10:30. One of the problems of this place is
they try to have us in two or three places at the same time.
None of us have been able to figure out how to do that yet.
But I just want to take a few seconds, Mr. Chairman, just
to welcome each and every one of you, especially Judith Ayres,
because she was married in Squam Lake which is just a few miles
from my house. So she has good judgment, I know that right up
front. So I am looking forward to hearing the testimony of the
nominees, and appreciate again, Mr. Chairman, your bringing
them forward.
Senator Jeffords. Anyone else desire time? Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No. 1, thank you for
holding these hearings. As Senator Smith has pointed out, with
all the difficult problems that we face, the Administrator
absolutely has to have her team in place, the Bush
Administration must have this team in place. We cannot expect
progress to occur, questions to be answered until they are. So
I thank you for holding the hearing. I look forward to working
with you to make sure that these and all the others who have
been cleared by the committee are confirmed prior to the August
recess so there will not be any confusion, so that families
will know where to start school in September, and that is
vitally important.
I have to apologize. With appropriations bills on the
floor, I am going to have to leave. One of those bills may be
coming up today on EPA, which probably my participation on the
floor may be more important than here.
I want to express a special welcome to Tracy Mehan, who
claims to come from Michigan, but really we all know that he
was the director of the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources from 1989 to 1992. We are always happy to share
experience with other States in need, like Michigan. And in
this instance, he can use that expertise developed there to
help the nation's water problems. I think that this experience
and with his midwestern perspective, the EPA's Office of Water
will be very important.
I have had the opportunity to talk to the nominee. I hope
that they will be getting back to us with an agency
recommendation on the fishable waters measure, a bipartisan
measure which I have now sponsored in this second session of
Congress, to have locally led, incentive-based, voluntary
solutions to assure healthy watersheds and fishable waters.
This is something that we ought to be able to do as we have
much work to do in the contentious areas of clean water.
This office is going to have to work with this committee,
and I believe that from our previous discussions you understand
how critical the water project funding is and the backlog is
very significant. This is something that is a huge insolvable
problem for the EPA Appropriations Subcommittee. And I
appreciate very much your amending the agenda to say that we
would take a look at these water infrastructure problems,
because they are huge.
We look forward to working with Mr. Schregardus on assuring
compliance assistance and compliance incentives, fixing
environmental problems. We look forward to hearing from the EPA
a comprehensive plan to assure that the proposed transformation
of environmental enforcement or the transmogrification from
Federal enforcement to State enforcement will work. As you
probably know, the report coming out of the appropriations
committee does not make that transfer. We did not feel that
there was sufficient information on how State enforcement would
take over for Federal enforcement, and that is why we do not
have the bipartisan support that we need to make that transfer.
But we will look forward to working with the Administrator and
Mr. Schregardus.
Mr. Fabricant, being the Office of General Counsel, I will
not even comment on that. You have got a full plate, and more
than that.
And I just had the opportunity to mention to Ms. Ayres that
in the international activities area we have the potential to
make a significant contribution to improving the quality of
life, even preserving life in emerging nations around the world
if we export the technology that developing in the United
States that is regulated by the EPA in addition to the FDA and
the USDA. I am talking about biotechnology, genetically
modified organisms. Under proper regulation, we can reduce the
amount of chemical pesticides used not only in this country,
but around the world. And some of the problems in countries I
have visited have been extreme because they have over-used and
misused harmful chemicals that can be replaced by genetically
modified organisms with the BT DNA included to kill pests, for
example, the genetic modifications that can stop the viruses.
We can help African farmers produce crops that will feed their
country. We can promote things like the golden rice that will
stop deaths of children from malnutrition and blindness. But we
need the informed leadership of our EPA as well as FDA and USDA
to help stop the hysterical, unscientific, anti-GMO attitudes
that Europe has tried to foist on the world. This is going to
be an exciting challenge, and I look forward to working with
Ms. Ayres.
And I apologize for the length of my statement. We have a
lot of work to do in cooperation with these people and between
the appropriations subcommittee and this committee. Mr.
Chairman, I assure you that we look forward to working with
you.
Senator Jeffords. You articulated very well the problems
that we have. I appreciate your interest and explanations. You
are a valuable asset.
Senator Bond. We cannot solve them in appropriations by
ourselves, so we look forward to working with you and these
distinguished nominees. I thank the Chair, and I thank the
nominees.
Senator Jeffords. I look forward to working with you,
Senator.
Senator Voinovich?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. First of all, I would like to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for the speedy hearing on these nominations. I
know that the Administrator and Secretary are anxious to have
them on board so they can get on with their work.
I would like to take a brief moment to thank my colleague,
Senator Carper, for speaking in favor of legislation we
introduced jointly earlier this month at yesterday's Government
Affairs Committee on Senator Boxer's legislation to create the
EPA as a cabinet status agency. I also appreciate his offer
yesterday to Administrator Whitman to try and help her get her
nominees confirmed before the August recess. I hope this
committee will quickly approve these nominees early next week,
and hopefully the full Senate will consider them before the
recess.
Senator Jeffords. That is my intention and we are working
toward that direction.
Senator Voinovich. And it is my pleasure to welcome all the
nominees before the committee today, Mr. Sampson, Mr.
Fabricant, Mr. Mehan, Ms. Ayres, and especially Mr.
Schregardus. I did have a chance to work with Mr. Mehan when he
was with Governor Engler in Michigan while I was Governor of
Ohio.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have had the
distinct pleasure of working with Don Schregardus for many
years. I was pleased on June 28th that President Bush nominated
him to be the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the EPA. I strongly
believe that he is the right individual for this important
position. I respectfully request that you support his
nomination in the committee.
Don has spent his entire career, this is really
interesting, working for environmental improvement. He was
trained as an environmental engineer and began his career with
the Environmental Protection Agency in 1974 as an inspector and
compliance officer in the Water Division. He worked in Region 5
of EPA for 16 years, rising to be the chief of the compliance
section.
In 1980, then Governor Dick Celeste recruited Mr.
Schregardus to be deputy director of Water Programs for the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Two years later, when I
was elected Governor, I was pleased to appoint him to my
cabinet as director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
because I was impressed with his long career and his service as
a professional in environmental protection. I was lucky to have
him serve in my cabinet for my entire term.
He successfully managed a department which is responsible
for implementing laws and regulations regarding air and water
quality standards, solid hazardous and infectious waste
disposal, water quality planning, supervision of sewage
treatment and public drinking water supplies, and cleanup of
unregulated hazardous waste sites. He took an agency which had
been poorly managed and made it into one of the most effective
in my administration. We doubled funding for the Ohio EPA at
the expense of our polluters. Ohio's air and water quality were
improved. Ohio became the first State in the midwest to receive
Federal approval for a massive new industrial air permitting
program. We created voluntary incentives that led to real
cleanups. Under Mr. Schregardus' leadership, Ohio EPA increased
enforcement inspections and the total amount of civil penalties
collected substantially.
Moreover, Don Schregardus is a fair person. In light of the
Federal Government's pressing need for effective environmental
enforcement, I can think of few individuals more experienced or
qualified to assume this role at the EPA than Mr. Schregardus.
Originally, given his background in EPA's regional office and
heading a State agency, I recommended Mr. Schregardus to be
administrator for Region 5. I later learned he did not receive
the appointment; somebody else got it. I was surprised later to
learn that Administrator Whitman had selected Mr. Schregardus
to be Assistant Administrator based on his strong record and
career in the Federal and State environmental enforcement. So,
Mr. Schregardus, I want you to know that your nomination had
nothing to do with me. Somebody looked at your resume and
decided this person would make a good person for the job that
you are being nominated for. So I am pleased that the Bush
Administration has selected an individual of integrity and
professional experience and has given him the opportunity to
rise.
He is going to be, I think this is important, in charge of
an agency where he started out as an inspector. Too often I
think in government today we bring in people from outside,
maybe sometimes from the private sector, and that is not to say
anything against that, but to have somebody work their way up
through the ranks I think will be an especially good thing for
the EPA, where people who work in that agency will say, hey,
there is somebody that started out as an inspector and now is
heading up this particular agency. So it does happen. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. I thank you, and thank you for that
excellent recommendation. I agree with you that those that have
sometimes had the opportunity to be at the lower levels in the
sense of the hierarchy end up as to the most knowledgeable in
how to solve the problems.
Senator Inhofe?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do want to have a
brief opening statement in order to bring out two very
significant things where I am going to be asking each one of
you for a firm commitment.
First of all, the prior Administration by-passed the
safeguards of the Administrative Procedures Act which required
Federal agencies to provide opportunities to informed,
meaningful public participation as a result of regulatory
rulemaking process. Now, we set up the APA to force the
bureaucracy to go in and get the opinions, get the ideas, have
a system whereby comments can be heard. But the last
Administration avoided that by making liberal use of interim
final rules, guidance documents, and policy statements which
did not require the public comment. For example, in April of
2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Appalachian Power v. EPA
actually had to strike down an abusive EPA guidance document.
The court found: (1) EPA was creating broad new authority
through the guidance document; (2) the EPA did intend the
guidance document to have binding effect; and (3) the guidance
document was illegally issued outside the APA rulemaking
procedures.
So I would ask each one of you if you will give a
commitment to this committee at this time to stop this
practice. Would any of you not commit to do that at this time?
[No response.]
Senator Jeffords. That is a better way to ask it.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
The second thing, I have told this story so many times and
I know that Administrator Browner did not want to hear it
anymore, and she is not hearing it unless she is tuned in right
now, and that is the story--I am sure every one of us up here
has had phone calls from people that received almost terrorist
type of demands from the EPA. And these are going to the people
who are paying for all this fun that we are having up here. The
story I told was the Jimmy Dunn story, a third generation owner
of a lumber company, he received a notice in 1994 and called me
up and said the EPA has just put me out of business. That
notice was very carefully worded to inflict terror in this
individual to make him think that they were going to fine him
$5,000 a day because for the past 10 years he had disposed of
used crankcase oil that eventually made its way to a Superfund
site. But he had done so legally, selling it to people who had
licenses to dispose of it. Anyway, that turned out that
everything is fine with him. However, I have often wondered
what about those hundreds of people out there that do not call
their Congressman or their Senator.
So what I would like to ask of you, and probably, Mr.
Schregardus, you particularly, and I have talked to you about
this in my office, because you are going to be dealing with
this type of thing, but would all five of you make a commitment
to work with citizens and not harass them and not terrorize
them. Yes. Yes. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith and I both have the Senate
Armed Services Committee, a very significant hearing, and that
is the reason we have to leave early. But I wanted to get those
two things in.
Senator Jeffords. I understand. I would say that this may
expedite things a bit too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Senator Chafee?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the
nominees. Mr. Sampson was saying in his opening statement that
his young son had said that he is not the Assistant Secretary
yet because he still has to be ``confused'' by the Senate. So,
welcome here, and probably prophetic.
Senator Jeffords. All right. I guess we will go right back
to where we started and allow you to make your statements.
Mr. Sampson, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID SAMPSON--CONTINUED
Mr. Sampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do wish to thank
the President for nominating me for this position, and express
my gratitude to the committee members that I have had the
opportunity to visit with as well as the staff members. I also
extend my gratitude to Secretary of Commerce Don Evans and his
staff and to the staff of EDA for all their support and
assistance that they have provided me since I have arrived
here.
I have submitted testimony for the record, but would like
to summarize my background in economic development philosophy
for you. I was born and raised in rural southern Indiana, so I
was exposed firsthand to the economic challenges that confront
many of our communities even today. I witnessed the economic
dislocation caused by vast swings in farm commodity prices,
outmigration of manufacturing facilities.
I am passionate about economic development. I believe that
it is an important public policy goal to maximize wealth and
minimize poverty. The public sector cannot do that. It is the
private sector, through the investment of capital, that creates
wealth and minimizes poverty in communities. But the role of
the public sector plays a very important role in creating the
kind of environment where the private sector will risk making
capital investment that creates the kind of jobs that we want
for all of our citizens. And so I am excited about this
opportunity. I believe that my past experiences in Texas in
economic development, both at the State and local level, will
prepare me well for this position should I be fortunate enough
to be confirmed by the Senate.
My long term goal is to lead EDA to become the premier
standard bearer for economic developers across the country. I
believe that EDA's programs provide an appropriate and
critically needed service to America's distressed communities.
But I am equally committed to the belief that Government is
accountable for the funds its spends and the programs it
carries out. As the premier economic development partner, EDA
must set the standard for excellence in its own operations and
management.
My view of management is that an organization functions
best on the basis of teamwork and partnerships. We can move EDA
forward as long as we do it as a team. And I look forward to
working with the staff members of EDA should I be confirmed as
well as economic development partners at the local, State, and
Federal level, and certainly, most importantly, working with
this committee and the Congress and its staff.
A recent work force analysis study performed by Booz Allen
highlighted that in EDA the commitment to facilitate economic
development and provide superior customer service is pervasive.
I think that speaks well of the current staff of EDA. I look
forward to having the opportunity to join them should I be
confirmed.
In closing, I would like to thank my family for allowing me
to uproot them from Texas. I consider it a great honor to have
the opportunity of serving President Bush and my country in
this position. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today, and look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much for your statement. I
have just two questions for you. Recently, the Economic
Development Administration, EDA, finished a comprehensive year
review of the agency's work force and organizational structure.
Their review recommended that the EDA work to improve
communications between the regional offices and the
headquarters in an effort to better serve economically
distressed communities. Can you please discuss how these
improvements can help the EDA effectively and efficiently help
small rural States such as Vermont.
Mr. Sampson. Yes, sir. The Booz Allen study, I compliment
my predecessor for authorizing that study. I think it is very
helpful. The regional offices are the front line interaction
between EDA and the States and local communities. It will be
our goal to ensure that the regional administrators are very
plugged in to what we are discussing at the headquarters level.
But more importantly, I think the most important thing we can
do is to align our existing resources appropriately. And by
that, I mean making sure that our regional offices have the
kind of staff that they need to be able to adequately cover all
of the territories. We need to make sure that our EDRs,
Economic Development Representatives, are strategically placed
to adequately cover the geographic and demographic distribution
of those territories.
I think the recent legislation which expands our ability to
work with communities through qualifying under Special Needs
categories will be very helpful in States like Vermont where
the overall unemployment rate is low but you do have areas of
significant under-employment. One of the things that we will
work to do is to expand our planning grants and our
infrastructure grants to the broad range of communities, and I
think the Special Need qualification that you have authorized
us to utilize will be very helpful.
Senator Jeffords. While the economic distress in Vermont
may be not country-wide, there are many small towns and
villages that are in need of Federal economic development
assistance. Can you discuss how the EDA allocates its economic
development resources, and more specifically, discuss how EDA
works to ensure that small towns, like in Vermont, St. Albans
or Randolph, are not left behind when it comes to the Federal
development dollars.
Mr. Sampson. Yes, sir. Those funds are apportioned on a pro
rata share to the six regional offices around the country. All
grants must be consistent with a comprehensive economic
development strategy that is produced at the local level, and
then those local communities advance a proposed project to the
regional office for review and approval. I think it is vitally
important that we expand the coverage and the reach of our
economic development representatives in working with those
small and rural communities to ensure that (1) they do have a
comprehensive economic development strategy by providing
adequate and expanded planning grants to them; and (2) work
with them to advance specific projects that fit within their
comprehensive economic development strategy to the regional
office.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Fabricant, please proceed with your
statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT FABRICANT, NOMINATED TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Fabricant. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
thank you for providing me with the opportunity to appear
before you today. It is a great honor and privilege to be here
as the President's nominee to be General Counsel of the
Environmental Protection Agency. I want to express to you and
your staff my appreciation for the many courtesies extended to
me in preparing for this hearing.
When Governor Whitman asked me if I would consider serving
as General Counsel of EPA, it took me but a second to say yes.
I have spent virtually my entire career in the public sector,
most recently as Governor Whitman's chief counsel. Prior to
that, I served in positions in the Governor's office that
specialized in environment matters, and I have also served in
the capacity as a deputy attorney general for the State of New
Jersey with litigation and counseling advice to our New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. Since being admitted to
the bar, my primary focus has been a career in environmental
law.
Given that professional experience in this area, the
opportunity to serve at EPA in this capacity is a truly
humbling thing for me. I am grateful to Governor Whitman, to
the President, and to you for this opportunity. Should you do
me the honor of recommending my confirmation to the Senate, and
should I be confirmed, I will devote all my efforts and
energies to doing a good job.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Mr. Fabricant, you have spent
much of your career with Administrator Whitman as her advisor
while she was Governor of New Jersey. Now you are looking at
being her legal adviser of EPA. What do you see as the biggest
challenge in taking the step from State government to the
General Counsel for a Federal agency?
Mr. Fabricant. The largest step I believe is the complexity
of the issues and the broad range of State issues that will
arising and reconciling the different regional aspects of the
larger Federal EPA versus a State like New Jersey, which has
many of the same issues that are nationwide but not at the
level and complexity that you need to reconcile them at the
Federal level.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Mehan.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE TRACY MEHAN, III, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Mehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, for the privilege to address you as President Bush's
nominee for Assistant Administrator for Water at EPA.
I am very grateful to the President, Governor Whitman, and
this committee for being considered for this tremendous
responsibility to protect the waters of the United States. I
look forward to working with you all to ensure that our
children continue to enjoy the fruits of America's bounty,
particularly the lakes, rivers, wetlands, and oceans.
I grew up on the Mississippi River and had the good fortune
to marry a resident of the Lake Michigan shores. My wife and
children, even as we speak, are enjoying a summer's respite on
a lake in Wisconsin. And my parents are on their way to the
coast of South Carolina for a well-deserved vacation. My
family, just as most American families, realize that water
defines much of their lives, at least the most enjoyable
aspects. But for many other Americans, many more Americans, it
is even more important in that it is the basis of making a
living, supporting a business, or even feeding themselves.
Given the importance of water in the lives and occupations
of our citizens, it is understandable that starting in the
1970's the nation began the hard work of restoring its water
quality with very great, albeit limited, success. The strength
of our economy in the postwar era, no doubt created both the
desire and the means of cleaning up the waters, and I believe
that has a lot to do with our success. But it was not just the
money. It was the love of our country and its beautiful waters.
Many commentators have noted the evolving nature of the
challenges to further improvements in water quality. We need to
look beyond the traditional discharge pipe in the water to more
generalized sources of runoff, polluted runoff. There is also
the need to look at the entire watershed to assess the most
cost-effective means of intervention and reduction of a target
pollutant. These and other challenges, such as restoring
contaminated sediments and preventing air deposition of
pollutants to our waters, will require new and creative ways of
meeting our responsibilities of stewardship in this new
century.
I hope to contribute to the search for solutions to the
water quality challenges of the day, working with the White
House, Governor Whitman, and of course this committee to
involve stakeholders from the public and private sectors, from
State and local government, and from people inside and outside
of government.
Working together, I believe we can identify and implement
successful strategies to maintain and restore the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of our waters. No doubt many
of these strategies will be tailored to specific problems in
specific communities. Hence, the importance of the watershed as
both a social and hydrological reality. Here is where
communities, neighbor to neighbor, can engage one another,
educate each other, persuade one another in a mutual quest for
shared goals.
There are, of course, other problems national in scope
where the Federal role is a significant if not a paramount one.
This committee has developed legislation directed EPA to work
with States, tribes, and other Federal agencies to help finance
water infrastructure, to set national drinking water standards,
to protect wetlands, to control discharges from industry and
sewage treatment plants, and, of course, to reduce nonpoint
source pollution through various methods. The impact of air
pollutants, such as mercury or nitrogen, on water quality also
requires national attention. This is a classic cross-media
problem and we will need a coordinated approach to addressing
pollutants which are a threat both to air and water.
Americans view conservation and environmental protection as
important elements of the public agenda. They look to public
officials to harmonize these priorities with social and
economic objectives. This is a task of great difficulty, but
one that is well worth the effort.
I will strive to meet these challenges while relying on the
best available science and economic analysis with due regard
for the statutory directives of Congress.
I will be honored to work with this committee, Mr.
Chairman, to accomplish the hard work of protecting and
restoring our nation's water quality. Again, I thank you for
your time and consideration today.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Mehan. As you well know,
there are indications that there is a crisis of rather large
proportions with respect to the wastewater and drinking waters
in this nation. In fact, it has been estimated that over the
next 20 years communities will need between $600 billion and $2
trillion to upgrade their water infrastructure. I have several
questions for you related to this issue. What do you see as the
Federal Government's role in funding water infrastructure?
Mr. Mehan. Let me say, first of all, there is a role and I
think we are at the front end of what has to be a very
sustained dialog in fleshing out and defining what that role
is. Clearly, historically, most of the resources that have gone
into our infrastructure have come from municipalities, local
governments, and other sources. But there has been a clear
Federal role. And certainly when you look at interstate bodies
of water, when you look at communities in distress, smaller
communities running into affordability issues, there is clearly
I think an opportunity to explore what that role is and to what
degree.
Again, I am very pleased that Governor Whitman has listed
this infrastructure issue as one of her top priorities. I am
very pleased to begin working with her and the Administration
and this committee to flesh out and give some direction and
specificity to what that role is. Again, I will be one voice
among many in the Administration, but I can tell you there is a
Federal role, it is a significant one, but it does need some
refinement, some direction as to what is the legitimate and
appropriate targeting of that Federal role and involvement.
Senator Jeffords. As you know, this is going to be a very
critical issue and finding the funding, with all the other
priorities that we have, is going to be very difficult,
especially in looking at the limits that were placed on EPA's
funding by the recent budget agreement. So this committee is
going to be dedicated to trying to work with you to make sure
that we do all we can to help the States and local communities.
I am also interested in your views on the State Revolving
Fund programs for supporting drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure. Are these SRF programs working well? Or do they
need to have changes, and if so, what changes would you
suggest?
Mr. Mehan. Generally, I would say yes. At least from the
standpoint of a State official and most of the State officials
I have interacted with, the SRF program has been an effective
one. It is one that I think both EPA and the States have been
comfortable with. Generally, that is a good model and a good
mechanism that has been in place these many years.
However, in this age of continuous improvement, there is
always room for more improvement and to what extent it can
carry the load necessary for all these new challenges,
especially as we look at grants versus loans. But in the main,
it is a good program and it is one of the successes of the last
couple of decades. So I think it is a question of fine tuning
and refining it. I think it has worked and it provides a lot of
lessons for the future.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Voinovich?
Senator Voinovich. Do you think that the current Federal
program to help communities in terms of their water and waste
treatment facilities is adequate?
Mr. Mehan. If you view that question in terms of what the
objective need is, there is a huge need, a huge need, and there
may never be enough resources from the Federal Treasury to deal
with that. However, I think we need to think comprehensively,
not just on the money side, but on the technical assistance
side, on the asset management side, and look at a way to
optimize whatever Federal resources are ultimately available.
Again, the needs, as the Chairman indicated, are large
across the board, whether we are talking wastewater or drinking
water, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of just operating
expenses. So in an objective sense, no. But I think the
question we are going to have to face at some point, whatever
role the Federal Government has will no doubt be a limited one,
and the question will be how to optimize and fully leverage and
effectively use whatever resources are eventually available
through Federal sources.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that I am concerned
about, and you must have experiences, we do have an aging
infrastructure in both water and in sewers. If you are candid
and intellectually honest, you have to look back and find that
we made major improvements in waste treatment when the Federal
Government instituted the 75-25 program, which went off I think
in the middle of the 1980's. That problem is still there.
In addition to that, I think you are familiar with a lot of
the new requirements that are coming out of the Environmental
Protection Agency particularly in the area of CSOs and
stormwater overflows. I would think it would be incumbent upon
the next individual that has this job to review those new
requirements that are coming out to make sure that they make
sense from a common sense point of view. And if they do, to
recognize that the local people are not able to handle that by
themselves. I have got a bill in this year to increase the SRF
from $1.5 billion to $3 billion a year over 5 years, $15
billion. Right now, we are trying to get a little paltry sum of
money, Mr. Chairman, we had the Wet Weather Program last year,
we asked for $1.5 billion, $750 million in this budget just
does not provide for it. And then the WIN organization has come
up with a proposal over a 5-year period of looking at spending
about $57 billion to deal with the problem.
I would hope that the director of the agency and you would
be forthright and candid with Congress in terms of what the
needs are, and to understand that there is more of a role for
the Federal Government to play currently than is now being
played. Some of these new things coming out of the EPA are
unfunded mandates and somehow we have got to grapple with this
situation and we have to get it on the table if we are going to
deal with it.
Unfortunately, we have these unmet Federal needs and we are
going off in new directions and new programs and just ignoring
the fact that these need to be addressed. I would like to hear
from you. Would you be willing to be an advocate there in terms
of bringing these things to our attention?
Senator Jeffords. I share the Senator's feelings there.
Mr. Mehan. As I have said, I hope I have been direct and
responsive, infrastructure is a huge issue and there is a
significant Federal role. Beyond that, I intend to work very
hard, based on the priorities the Administrator has set out, to
formulate policy that I think comprehensively addresses all the
issues you have raised, both in terms of the resources side,
the money side, but also what are the legitimate mandates. Are
we looking at these rules in a way where we are getting value-
added, we are getting the biggest bang for the buck. On top of
that, as I say, I think a third thing which I am hearing from
the career staff is the whole issue of asset management. Are we
managing the existing capital infrastructure in a way that
prolongs its life.
So, again, that issue, as well as defining what is the
appropriate extent of the Federal involvement, are all the
kinds of issues that I intend to weigh in on and, hopefully, be
a robust participant in those discussions within the
Administration, and as we move out to the next concentric
circle, that is the Senate and the House, to weigh in heavily
on those issues.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Mrs. Ayres, please proceed with your
statement.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH ELIZABETH AYRES, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Ayres. Good morning. I am honored to have the
opportunity to appear before this committee to see your
confirmation to serve as EPA's Assistant Administrator for the
Office of International Activities. It is a distinct honor to
have been nominated by the President and to have the support of
Governor Christine Todd Whitman. If the Senate confirms my
nomination, I also look forward to working closely with members
of this committee, and other members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
I believe the Office of International Activities in EPA is
a place where a common understanding and approach can be
developed to address the many global environmental problems
that confront us. If confirmed, I pledge to use my experience
and talented staff to promote a spirit of environmental
stewardship which reflects Administration priorities.
Today, in seeking the committee's confirmation, I offer as
qualifications my academic background, my public and private
sector environmental experience, and my record in both venues
as a proven and fair manager committed to doing the public's
business in a public way to pursue high environmental
priorities.
Environmental protection and gain are at the very heart of
EPA's major program areas. Each program carries an essential
international dimension; addressing pollution of air, water,
solid and hazardous waste, toxic chemicals, and also emergency
response functions, and pesticides. The international dimension
is important because we know what goes on in backyards halfway
around the world may also end up in our own.
I would also offer comments on the people of the Office of
International Activities. This is an exceptionally talented,
dedicated, and professional group of public servants who seek a
well-managed office with challenging and interesting work, the
resources to get it done, and a work environment that is fair
and equitable. Mr. Chairman, President Bush, Governor Whitman,
and I commit both to the committee and to the Office of
International Activities that going forward, the office will be
well-managed, all managers and employees will be held
accountable, the world will be challenging, and the work
environment will be fair and equitable.
In closing, I have chosen to seek confirmation and to re-
enter public service because I believe public service is the
noblest of professions and I believe protection of the
environment, in all its many dimensions, to be the most vital
of endeavors.
Thank you. I shall be pleased to answer any questions you
might have.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for an excellent statement. If
confirmed, you will be the head of an office within EPA that
has responsibility for international activities. Given the
Administration's position on Kyoto and climate change, our
international relations on these issues is very important right
now. How do you see the role you will play within the Agency,
the Administration, and the international community on these
issues? What is your role?
Ms. Ayres. I would ask for some clarification, Mr.
Chairman. Are you referring specifically to Kyoto or to all
international activities?
Senator Jeffords. Either way. Your choice.
Ms. Ayres. Then thank you, I will take the broader
approach.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ayres. And that would be, the Office of International
Activities at EPA works collaboratively with other entities
within the Federal Government and certainly with other entities
within EPA itself, the program offices. So International
Activities will be working with Water, certainly the General
Counsel's Office, we are not doing much in the Enforcement, but
all of the areas internally, and then working closely with the
State Department, Treasury, with the Trade Representative. So
there is a real collaborative effort. On a few issues, EPA
Office of International Activities has the distinct lead.
Certainly, one of those areas has to do with a very vital
program going on on the Mexican-U.S. border.
Senator Jeffords. Let us just focus for just a second on
Kyoto. What are your views or your expectations with regard to
the international impacts?
Ms. Ayres. Kyoto, certainly an issue in the new. Certainly
an issue of great interest to you, I am aware, and certainly
the Agency is aware, the Administration is aware. At this time,
the Administration has chosen to not have our country be a
party to Kyoto. The two issues there essentially are issues of
equity regarding the numbers of countries who are participating
and who will be, so it would be an equity issue, and then it
would also be an issue of how it would affect our economy. The
feeling of the Administration is that these control mechanisms
would have deleterious effect on our economy.
The Administration, as you know, is conducting a cabinet
level review of climate change policy. They are working on a
product, I do not know what that product is, when that product
will be available, but I do know that the Administration is
committed to looking at this issue at the cabinet level, and
that is happening regularly.
Senator Jeffords. Just let me pass information on to you. I
met recently with a number of different countries that are
leaders in the environment and they expressed deep concern over
the attitude of the United States with respect to Kyoto. I just
want to pass that on because I think we have a responsibility
to understand the reactions of the world community when we take
a position which is discouraging with respect to our
cooperation in Kyoto. I just want to pass that on to you.
Ms. Ayres. Thank you, Senator. In response, let me say that
should I be confirmed, both I and the Office of International
Activities look forward to working with you and the entire
Congress to the extent that we are involved in this issue as
the process moves forward.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Voinovich?
Senator Voinovich. On Kyoto, if this country is unhappy
with the current Kyoto treaty, do you think it is incumbent on
us to come back with an alternative?
Ms. Ayres. I think it is incumbent upon us to work in the
interest of the greater good for the global environment, for
the community of nations. I believe that first steps have been
taken in that the Administration believes that the climate
change is a problem, believes that there is a man-induced
component of that. And from my perspective, having been at the
Agency for some 12 nonconsecutive days, in my capacity as a
consultant, I am prohibited from attending any meetings outside
of the EPA itself. So I am not a principal in this issue at
this time. However, I believe that the Administration has
strong feelings that they are wanting to be value-added, and if
that is in fact bringing forward a plan, possibly domestically
and internationally, that will be done.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I would suggest that is what the
position should be. We have strong feelings and I concur with
some of the reservations the President has about it. I have had
hearings on the issue of global warming and there certainly is
a difference of opinion among the scientists. But the fact of
the matter is that there is a problem and it seems to me we
should be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
This issue has even larger implications than just the issue
of the environment. It has large implications in terms of our
relationships with our allies around the world. I can tell you,
this year I attended the NATO meeting in Vilnius and I was at
the OSCE meeting in France, our parliamentarians from those
nations are very, very upset. They basically feel that the
United States is just stiff-arming this whole thing and walking
away from it. It is bad, bad public relations.
If we are not happy with the situation, then we have an
obligation to come back and say here is what our problems are
and can we work on some other alternatives. But we do know
there is a problem and we are willing to participate in working
with you to do something practical about it even though we may
not agree with some of the scientists that say we are the main
cause of this global warming problem. But it is out there and
we ought to be doing something constructive about it. And I
would hope that is going to be your attitude and the attitude
of the Administration.
Ms. Ayres. Senator, the Agency and the Administration look
forward to working with you toward a solution that helps solve
the problem and is an equitable solution to our nation's
economy, which is basically two of the underpinning principles
that are being looked at and being included in any plan the
Administration may come forward with at the cabinet level at
this time.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Some years ago, I started what is now
referred to as the Alliance to Save Energy with industries in
this country to try to work together to find ways to conserve
energy. Three years ago, I was in China and met some of the
experts in this country who were over looking at China's coal
consumption, and they came back with a staggering understanding
that with efficiency improvements they could almost reduce the
consumption of coal up to 60 percent between the user and the
provider.
It seems to me this nation has an opportunity to try and be
a leader in how to help other nations to do the efficient
things that we have learned to do here, because if you look at
China, as you know, and India, and other areas, inefficiencies
are very serious. I would hope that we would take a leadership
role in trying to help those nations find ways to be more
efficient, which would reduce the problems certainly by
magnitudes of great numbers if those experts are correct.
So I would hope you would take an interest in seeing what
we could do to try to work in that area.
Ms. Ayres. Thank you, Senator. What you have just mentioned
is really at the very heart of what the International Office at
EPA is all about, the phrase used is ``capacity building.''
Through these capacity building projects, which are truly
around the world, with lesser developed countries or other
countries, often the same countries who are grappling with the
most devastating environmental problem of all, poverty, which
is one of the reasons why these inefficiencies exist, the
sharing of technologies, the sharing of expertise from our
country and oftentimes from the professionals at EPA to these
other countries in helping them learn new ways of doing things
that will make them simply more efficient and thus, in many
instances, less polluting.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you.
Ms. Ayres. And I look forward to working with you. Thank
you.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Schregardus?
STATEMENT OF DONALD R. SCHREGARDUS, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Schregardus. Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, and
distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor and a
pleasure to appear before you this morning as the nominee to be
EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance. I am honored and excited that President
Bush and Governor Whitman have invited me to join the
Administration to improve public health and the environment in
this great nation. I am especially pleased to be joined here
today by my daughter Sarah who flew in from Ohio this morning.
Compliance and enforcement have always been fundamental
components of our national environmental program. Governor
Whitman has expressed her commitment to a strong Federal
enforcement program, and so do I. Compliance and enforcement
has been a cornerstone of EPA's programs to improve public
health and the environment from its beginning. The American
people trust and rely on EPA to protect the land, air, and
water where they live. I understand this important
responsibility and, if confirmed, will do everything in my
power to meet this responsibility.
To this end, I believe my 25 years of experience in Federal
and State environmental regulatory agencies would provide a
valuable benefit to the Administration. I started my career at
EPA at a field office conducting environmental studies and
investigations. While developing permits and enforcement cases
I learned first-hand the importance of good science in
environmental decisionmaking. As chief of the Water Division
Compliance Section in Region 5, I managed one of the most
successful efforts to bring municipalities into compliance with
the Clean Water Act. We set records for the most penalties and
civil actions as compared to previous periods in the Region. As
a result, water quality improved across the region.
As director of Ohio EPA, I developed or expanded programs
in pollution prevention, technical assistance and environmental
education. I improved the scientific basis for environmental
decisionmaking. We implemented a program to evaluate the
quality of all 6,000 public water supplies in Ohio, we placed
inspectors at each of Ohio's commercial hazardous waste
disposal facilities, and we tripled the size of Ohio's landfill
inspection program. With the support of then-Governor
Voinovich, we added nearly 400 new people to the Agency, half
of which were placed in the Ohio EPA's district offices where
they conducted inspections and monitoring. We developed new
programs to clean up Brownfields, manage and cleanup tire
dumps, ensure the safety of underground injection wells.
Senator Jeffords, I was pleased to hear you are interested
in energy conservation. Ohio was one of the first midwest
States to join EPA as an active participant in their Green
Light Program to help reduce energy in buildings across the
State.
Throughout my service as director, I recognized the
importance of public involvement. I expanded public involvement
in the rulemaking and program development processes, and
started and supported 25 community-based groups to assist the
Agency in studying and improving water quality.
However, the real measure of success in these programs is
not in the outputs but in the outcomes. During my tenure as
director of Ohio EPA, one of the top manufacturing and energy
producing States in the country, air emissions of sulfur
dioxide, particulate, carbon monoxide, and lead were reduced
substantially, and for the first time all 88 counties in Ohio
met the national air quality standards. We had a 50 percent
reduction in toxic releases to the environment from 1988
levels, and we realized a 50 percent increase in stream miles
fully achieving fishable/swimmable Clean Water Act goals. I am
proud of these accomplishments, but more still needs to be
done. I look forward to bringing the knowledge gained from
these successes to apply to the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.
One area I believe is especially important for the
compliance and enforcement program is to focus on coordination
with the other offices in the Agency to ensure the
Administration has a clear, consistent national approach to
environmental protection. A clear unified approach to
environmental protection helps ensure there are no surprises
and no excuses to environmental compliance. Finally, I will
seek the involvement of the States and the public as we improve
and develop new programs.
From my career in enforcement, I have learned an effective
compliance and enforcement program involves far more than just
enforcement orders and lawsuits. Compliance starts with a clear
understanding of regulatory requirements and timeframes in
which they must be met. Education and compliance assistance are
needed to get the word out clearly and uniformly across the
country. Incentives and voluntary programs can assist
communities and businesses to achieve environmental controls in
a cost effective manner. Plans, goals, tracking, and
accountability are essential to follow progress. States, where
delegated the national programs, must take the lead. But if
requirements are not met, then the full range of
administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement actions must be
considered. If you should honor me by your confirmation, I will
work to improve each one of these elements and thereby improve
public health and the environment in a cost effective manner.
I look forward to working with you, Governor Whitman, and
President Bush to make the environment better for all
Americans. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this
morning.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. You are going to have a tough
job.
Mr. Schregardus. Yes, sir.
Senator Jeffords. I am concerned when I look at the budget
with respect to your role. The Administration's budget for 2002
cuts 270 EPA enforcement personnel from the office that you
will be heading while providing $25 million for grants to
States for enforcement programs. I would like you to tell the
committee what impact the personnel cuts will have on EPA's
ability to enforce our environmental laws, and what the State
Enforcement Grants Program will be designed to do.
Mr. Schregardus. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed by the Senate,
I will have the responsibility to support the President and the
President's budget, and I am committed to do that. I recognize
the issues that are being considered by the Congress at this
time on the issue of the President's budget related to moving
essentially $25 million from the Federal enforcement program to
the State enforcement program. You have accurately described
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is scheduled
to be reduced by a total of 270 work year, 205 of those will be
applied to the Agency reduction to achieve 17,500 FTEs and 65
FTEs will be moved to other programs.
With respect to this, Senator, I have worked at both the
State and national level and I recognize the importance and the
leadership role that the States have in enforcing the national
laws. I believe the $25 million proposed to be added to the
State Grants Program can be an effective, important tool in
improving State enforcement programs.
I also recognize that a reduction of $25 million from the
Federal side will have a real impact on the enforcement
program. But I certainly believe, and I believe strongly, that
the resources that remain in the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance are substantial and we will carry out a
vigorous enforcement program based on meeting the priorities of
the office.
And so, yes, I do believe that we can carry out a vigorous
program. We will take actions against facilities that have
multiple facilities in multiple States. We will take action
when there is cross-boundary issues. We will take actions where
the States have not been delegated the program. And we
certainly will take actions where the States are either
unwilling or unable to take actions within their States. But I
also believe, as well as Governor Whitman, that the $25 million
will substantially help the States carry out their very
important role in the environmental compliance and enforcement.
They currently take over 90 percent of the actions, both
inspections and enforcement, and we think through setting up a
grants program that requires accountability, a focus on
environmental priorities, we will see a measured improvement in
enforcement by the States.
Senator Jeffords. Well thank you. That is somewhat
reassuring, but I want to let you know that I intend to be
watching very carefully over what the impact is. I have full
faith in the Administrator. I believe she is a wonderful woman
and I have respected what she has done. But I want to make sure
she has all those tools necessary and available to her that she
must have in order to do the job. So I am going to be watching
like a hawk soaring above there to make sure that she has the
ability and no hinderance placed in her way to do the job she
is supposed to do.
Well thank you all.
I turn now to Senator Voinovich for any questions he may
have.
Senator Voinovich. I just was handed a note that said that
Senator Bond said this morning the Senate Appropriations will
not be cutting EPA's enforcement budget. So, one of the things
that the Administration proposes and the Congress disposes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Of course, we are right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Thank you all.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just say
one thing. I would like to thank all of you for responding to
the nomination of the Administration to take on these
responsibilities. It is a major sacrifice. I know it is
disruptive to your families. They are making a sacrifice right
now while you are in this limbo period. Hopefully, you will all
be appointed, and they will continue to make sacrifices as you
serve our country. I just want to thank you so much for your
willingness to step forward and to serve our nation. We need
outstanding people in our Federal Government, and your
willingness to serve is very much appreciated by your country.
Senator Jeffords. I have two obligatory questions that I have
to ask you. If I do not ask them, you cannot have your job, so
I think I better ask them.
Are you willing, and this is for all of you, at the request
of any duly constituted committee of the Congress to appear in
front of it as a witness? All nod your heads aye, I hope.
[Witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Senator Jeffords. OK. Fine.
No. 2, do you know of any matters which you may or may not
have thus far disclosed which might place you in any conflict
of interest if you are confirmed in your position?
[Witnesses answered in the negative.]
Senator Jeffords. Everybody is shaking their head no.
Thank you. Now you are on your way. We have to have a vote
on confirmation, but you are ready to go before that vote. So
thank you very much for appearing before us today. We look
forward to working with you.
[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of David Sampson, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Economic Development
Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith and members of the committee, Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I am grateful to
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Congressman Martin Frost for their
kind introductions, and to you for the warm welcome you have given me
and my family. Speaking of my family, I would like to take this
opportunity to introduce my wife, Karen, and my twin sons, John David
and Matthew Nicholas.
I also wish to thank the President for nominating me to this
position, and express my gratitude to committee members and their
staffs for the many courtesies extended to me during my visits with you
over the last month. In addition, I extend my gratitude to Secretary of
Commerce Don Evans and his staff and to the staff at EDA for the
support and assistance they have given me since my arrival here in
Washington.
I was born and raised in a rural farm community in southern
Indiana, so I was exposed firsthand at a young age to the economic
challenges that confront many of our nation's communities even today. I
witnessed the economic dislocation caused by significant swings in farm
commodity prices, drought and flood, the relocation of manufacturing
facilities outside of the Midwest, and the loss of population due to
lack of economic opportunity.
I am passionate about economic development. I believe economic
development is of critical importance because it supports two important
public policy objectives: creating wealth and minimizing poverty. The
creation of wealth enables people to be economically self-sufficient
and provides the resources needed for building safe, healthy,
convenient and attractive communities in which people want to live and
raise their families. Minimizing poverty is important because poverty
is not only de-humanizing, it is extremely costly in terms of
underutilized human and capital resources, welfare transfer payments,
soaring public health care costs, crime, and declining neighborhoods
that lose their value. Thus, the public sector has a legitimate
interest in supporting those efforts to bring economic opportunity to
all segments of our society. As President Bush said last week in a
speech before the World Bank, ``A world where some live in comfort and
plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day is
neither just, nor stable.''
But while I am passionate about economic development, I also
realize it is not the public sector that creates wealth and minimizes
poverty, but the private sector. Therefore, the public sector role is
to foster a positive environment where the private sector will risk
capital investment to produce goods and services and increase
productivity, thereby providing the high-skill/high-wage jobs that
offer opportunity for all Americans.
I have come to understand the nature and importance of economic
development over the past decade, during which I was actively involved
in addressing economic development issues at the local level. First as
a staff member and later as President and CEO of the Arlington, Texas,
Chamber of Commerce, I was directly involved in local economic
development efforts because the Chamber functions as the city of
Arlington's economic development department under a public-private
partnership agreement that has brought significant growth and
opportunity to the City.
Arlington, Texas, is an interesting blend of old and new economy
with a significant amount of tourism-based economic activity mixed in
for good measure. In addition, the City has an economically diverse
work force and population, and faces most of the economic development
challenges confronting the nation's cities. During my tenure as
President and CEO, the Chamber's economic development efforts on behalf
of the city of Arlington resulted in the investment of $2.4 billion in
private capital and the creation or retention of 28,465 jobs. This
level of achievement was possible because of an effective public-
private partnership, a bi-partisan working relationship with local,
State and national officials, the outstanding team of professionals we
had working on economic development in Arlington, and the strong
performance-based management system the Chamber and City established to
guide the economic development program.
I have also been involved in a number of economic development
activities at the State level in Texas at the appointment of then
Governor, now President, Bush. I served as the Vice Chairman of the
Texas Strategic Economic Development Planning Commission when we
developed a 10-year strategic economic development plan for Texas. That
effort was charged by then Governor Bush to ensure the plan developed
would help all regions of Texas achieve their highest economic
potential and share in the economic prosperity of the State. I
subsequently chaired the Texas Council on Workforce and Economic
Competitiveness where we worked to implement the State's plan to
integrate its economic development and work force development efforts.
This experience provided me a greater understanding of the need to
integrate economic and work force development efforts in order to
support more efficient use of both sets of resources. It also provided
me with an appreciation of the potential and promise of the Workforce
Investment Act and the role it can play in bringing increased
opportunity to Americans.
I believe these experiences and my prior experience with community-
based organizations have prepared me to take on the duties of the
position of Assistant Secretary for Economic Development. I am
committed to leading EDA to become the premier standard bearer for
economic developers across the country. I believe that EDA's programs
provide an appropriate and critically needed service to America's
distressed communities. But, I am equally committed to the belief that
the Government is accountable for the funds it spends and the programs
it carries out. I believe that EDA must be able to demonstrate, through
tangible outcomes and measures, how it is performing and the value of
its programs. And, as the premier economic development partner, EDA
must set the standard for excellence with its own operations and
management.
Integration of mission, organization, budget, and performance form
the basic loop that drives success. EDA must reestablish its strategic
context and focus by re-affirming the mission and vision of the Agency.
We will work with a broad cross-section of experts, private and public,
in the field of economic development, to analyze trends and
developments. We will work with our partners to develop a coherent and
comprehensive vision and strategy to meet the challenges of the 21st
century, and we will be poised to address economic development issues
as they begin to emerge. EDA will be pro-active in addressing economic
development in the future, not reactive.
The strategic vision and mission of EDA will, in turn, dictate the
organization necessary to achieve that vision. EDA commissioned a work
force analysis study at the end of fiscal year 2000 so the Agency could
plan strategically for long range human resource requirements, to
effectively align the work force with organization goals and
objectives, and to provide a foundation for focused cross-
organizational placement, training, retraining and recruitment.
The study identified key work functions and activities, analyzed
gaps between workload and work force, detailed managerial, technical
and core competencies, and specified the competencies in which
deficiencies exist. The study also found that 60 percent of EDA's work
force is eligible for retirement. Three key recommendations were made.
First, analyze work processes in greater detail, from a qualitative and
redundancy perspective, to streamline for greater efficiency and
effectiveness. Second, reestablish the strategic context and focus for
EDA by re-affirming the mission and vision of the Agency. Third,
implement a competency-based Human Resource System to tie employees'
competency and behaviors to the mission and strategic goals. Such a
competency model incorporates succession planning, recruitment,
selection and training and development.
If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed for the position of
Assistant Secretary, EDA will aggressively move forward to implement
the recommendations of the study. Let me assure you, however, that the
findings of the study will not be used to support requests for
additional staff resources, but rather will help us make optimum use of
available staff within current personnel ceilings. We will assess EDA
structure to ensure that we flatten management structures so there are
fewer layers between customers and senior policymakers. We will define
the role of headquarters and align and deploy resources to best serve
the needs of communities. We will streamline our processes, align
competencies with activities, and explore new opportunities for
technological solutions.
After vision and organization comes budget and performance. EDA
will derive its budget requests from the outcomes it hopes to achieve,
and I assure you that if we can't demonstrate the value of an EDA
program's investments, we will not seek funding for that program. I am
convinced of the importance of performance-based management systems and
that program budget requests should be supported by documented results.
Whatever activities we are going to undertake with public dollars must
be able to demonstrate benefit for the funds expended through
measurable, quantifiable performance measures. EDA is assessing its
performance measures, and is focusing resources to develop and define
tangible outcomes and performance measures for our capacity building
programs, planning and technical assistance. It is fundamental that
solid, substantive planning is a prerequisite for sustainable economic
development, but it is incumbent upon EDA to tangibly document specific
outcomes to be achieved, and then to measure our achievements.
The final recommendation from the work force analysis study
addressed the need for a competency based Human Resource System that
ties employees' competency and performance to the Agency mission and
goals and performance. A competency based Human Resource system
develops succession planning, recruiting, selection and performance
measurement around a competency model. I am a strong proponent of The
Balanced Scorecard, which is a performance management approach that
assesses customer satisfaction, financial results, and internal
processes in a way that is practical and measurable and that reinforces
the organization's critical competencies, goals and objectives.
Lastly, my view of management is that an organization functions
best on the basis of teamwork and partnerships. We can move EDA forward
as long as we do it as a team, and it would be my intention to work in
a collegial manner with EDA's staff. Let me say that in the short time
I have been serving as the Secretary's Senior Advisor, I have been most
impressed by the competence and dedication of the EDA staff, and I look
forward to joining them should I be honored by being confirmed as
Assistant Secretary. The work force analysis study highlighted that,
``The commitment to facilitate economic development and provide
superior customer service is pervasive throughout EDA.'' It is
important that the EDA team work in partnership with local, regional,
State and Federal economic development organizations, along with
Members of Congress and their staffs, in order to maximize the benefit
derived from all our efforts. No one program, Agency, private non-
profit, or governmental organization has all the resources or knowledge
needed to meet the nation's distressed areas' economic development
needs. By working cooperatively, however, we can make efficient use of
all our resources to leverage greater private sector investment and
more businesses and jobs for those Americans who have not been full
partners in the nation's economic growth.
In closing, I would like to thank my family for allowing me to
uproot them from Texas. I consider it a great honor having the
opportunity to serve President Bush and my country in this position. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and the
courtesies you have shown me, and will be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of David Sampson to Additional Questions from Senator Bob
Smith
Question 1. In my State of New Hampshire, the town of Londonderry
has an Ecological Industrial Park. The park's natural gas power plant
uses 4 million gallons of treated waste water from the city of
Manchester to cool the plant. This voluntary agreement is an excellent
example of two industries joining forces to reduce waste and improve
our environment. The EDA has been very supportive of these projects and
provided a grant to assist in the development of the National Center
for EcoIndustrial Development. How do you intend to continue developing
projects like those in Londonderry?
Response. In the few weeks I have served as Senior Advisor to the
Secretary, I have learned that EDA has been one of the leaders in the
implementation of the ecoindustrial development concept in the United
States. I was pleased to participate in the ecoindustrial development
briefing you hosted last week and to see EDA's leadership role
recognized by many of the speakers. EDA staff report that the agency
has been involved in ecoindustrial development projects based on the
model of the Londonderry, New Hampshire EcoPark, i.e., projects at
which energy generation is the basis for industrial exchanges in
support of job creation and development in economically distressed
areas. Two examples they mention are:
<bullet> the Riverside EcoIndustrial Park and Business Incubator,
located in Burlington, Vermont, where EDA provided $1,020,000 in
funding for the construction of a bioshelter greenhouse and
infrastructure for capturing and using waste heat from an electrical
generating station through biomass gasification; and
<bullet> the Red Hills EcoPlex Industrial Park, located in Choctaw
County, Mississippi where EDA awarded a $1,500,000 grant for
construction of infrastructure to facilitate heat exchanges between the
anchor tenant (the Red Hills Power Plant: a cleancoal lignitefueled
electric generating facility) and the various industrial park tenants.
Should I be confirmed as Assistant Secretary, EDA will continue to
work in partnership with communities to fund similar projects where
demand for such assistance has been identified by the communities and
is consistent with the region's economic development priorities, as
articulated in the area's Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
(CEDS). I am convinced of the value of the ecoindustrial development
approach. I also believe the agency's support for the National Center
for EcoIndustrial Development will help disseminate information about
the success and value of these initiatives to local economic
development officials throughout the country, thereby encouraging
development of more such projects.
Question 2. Further, ecoindustrial development is not only relevant
to economic development strategies but also efforts to promote resource
conservation and environmental protection. As such, other Federal
agencies including the Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection agency have a role to play in the advancement of this
exciting new concept. How do you intend to integrate the work of EDA
with that of these other agencies to establish a coordinated approach
for the advancement of ecoindustrial development?
Response. During the time I have served as Senior Advisor to the
Secretary, I have been informed that EDA has already begun working with
other Federal agencies in support of ecoindustrial development. While
EDA is the lead funding source for the National Center for
EcoIndustrial Development you mentioned, the agency was joined in that
effort by both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) here at Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EDA also invited other Federal agencies to join in support of the
Center, but was not successful in obtaining their support. The agency
is currently in the process of working with EPA to revise the existing
Brownfields Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to incorporate efforts to
cooperate on ecoindustrial development initiatives, and EDA has an MOU
with NOAA for cooperation on ecoindustrial development. In order to
further advance interagency cooperation and coordination, if I am
confirmed as Assistant Secretary we will work with NOAA and EPA to
invite other appropriate Federal agencies to join us in moving the
ecoindustrial concept ahead.
I have been informed by agency staff that EDA and the EPA also have
collaborated in the past to support local communities in their efforts
to redevelop brownfield sites as ecoindustrial parks. Examples they
have identified include:
<bullet> the Port of Cape Charles Sustainable Technologies
Industrial Park, located in Northampton County, Virginia where EDA
awarded a $400,000 grant for the construction of infrastructure
(roadways, storm sewer lines, water mains, a pumping station, and other
assorted improvements) to allow for the development of Phase 1 of the
ecopark; on a former brownfield site (town dump) assessed by the EPA;
and
<bullet> the Ft. Devens Army Base Reuse, located in Massachusetts,
where EDA awarded $2.1 million to the base redevelopment authority for
infrastructure enhancements in support of brownfields redevelopment
activities. Ft. Devens has developed a reuse plan that incorporates
industrial ecology principles.
The agency anticipates continued cooperation with EPA, NOAA and if
confirmed, I will actively seek the participation of other Federal
agencies on the development of additional ecoindustrial development
projects.
__________
Statement of Robert Fabricant, Nominee to be General Counsel,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith, members of the committee: Thank you
for providing me with the opportunity to appear before you today. It is
a great honor and privilege to be here as the President's nominee to be
General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency. I want to
express to you and your staff my appreciation for the many courtesies
extended to me in the preparation for this hearing. I look forward to
the opportunity, should I be confirmed, of working with all of you and
your staffs.
When Governor Whitman asked me if I would consider serving as
General Counsel of the EPA, it took me but a moment to say yes. I have
spent virtually my entire professional career in the public sector,
most recently as Governor Whitman's chief counsel in New Jersey. Prior
to that, I served in several other positions in the Governor's
Counsel's Office specializing in environmental matters. I have also
served as a deputy attorney general in New Jersey, providing advice and
counsel to New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection. Since
being admitted to the bar, the primary focus of my career has been
environmental law.
Given my professional experience in this area, the opportunity to
serve the nation at the EPA is a truly humbling thing. I am grateful to
Governor Whitman, to the President, and to you for this opportunity.
Should you do me the honor of recommending my confirmation to the
Senate, and should I be confirmed, I want you to know that I will
devote all of my energy and effort to doing the kind of job that merits
the confidence that has been placed in me for this very important
position at the EPA.
When Governor Whitman appeared before this committee as the
President's nominee for administrator, she spoke of the great goals to
which the Bush Administration and the EPA are committed, goals that I
believe the vast majority of the American people share. She spoke about
making America's air cleaner, its water purer, and its land better
protected. These are clear and simple concepts that are rarely matched
by clear and simple solutions. No one knows that better than
environmental attorneys.
During the years I had the honor to serve as a member of Governor
Whitman's administration, I had the opportunity to work on many of the
most vexing environmental legal issues facing the State of New Jersey.
Someone once said that New Jersey is America writ small, and it's true
especially when it comes to environmental challenges. So I believe that
my service in New Jersey has been good preparation for the job to which
I have been nominated.
That being said, however, I come to this position with no
illusions. I know that the broad array of legal issues confronting the
EPA are more than just complicated legal questions. They are, at their
root, questions that speak to our government's stewardship of the
nation's air, water, and land. Being true to our legal responsibilities
requires that we be equally true to our moral responsibilities as
environmental stewards.
I have often heard Governor Whitman say that every dollar the EPA
spends on litigation is a dollar that can't be spent cleaning up the
environment. While talk like that isn't necessarily music to a lawyer's
ears, I do think it is an important touchstone for a potential general
counsel to keep in mind. I am a strong supporter of the effort both the
President and the Administrator are making to build new partnerships
among all environmental stakeholders and across some longstanding
traditional divides.
I believe the Office of General Counsel is well equipped to help
the Administrator build those partnerships. I have found in my years as
an attorney that some of the most constructive lawyering isn't done in
a courtroom, it's done in a conference room, where smart, committed
lawyers bring all parties together and avoid the need for litigation.
Providing good, solid, legal advice and counsel to EPA's senior staff
will, I hope, help my Agency colleagues do their jobs and meet their
goals for America's environmental progress.
The EPA is most fortunate to have a very dedicated, extremely
capable staff of lawyers in the Office of General Counsel. They not
only work very hard, they care very much about what they are doing.
They adhere to the highest ethical standards and embody the best of
what the legal profession has to offer. They are results-oriented
public servants, who not only know everything there is to know about
environmental law, they also know the importance of keeping one's
attention on the ultimate goal and that's environmental progress.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: as the committee with
primary jurisdiction for writing the laws that the EPA is charged with
enforcing, I know that, should I be confirmed, I will have the
opportunity to work very closely with you and your staff. That's an
opportunity to which I eagerly look forward. But before I let that
eagerness run away with itself, I would like to pause here to again
thank you for welcoming me here today and to address any questions you
may have for me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
Statement of G. Tracy Mehan III, Nominated to be Assistant
Administrator for Water, Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for the
privilege to address you as President Bush's nominee for the position
of Assistant Administrator for Water at the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
I am very grateful to the President, Governor Whitman and this
committee for being considered for this tremendous responsibility to
protect the waters of the United States. I look forward to working with
you all to insure that our children continue to enjoy the fruits of
America's bounty, most especially its lakes, rivers, wetlands and
oceans.
I grew up on the Mississippi River and married a resident of the
Lake Michigan shores. My wife and children, even as we speak, are
enjoying a summer's respite on a lake in northern Wisconsin. My parents
are on their way to the coast of South Carolina for a well-deserved
vacation. For my family, as for most American families, water defines
much of our lives, certainly the more enjoyable aspects. For many
Americans, water is even more important--it is the means by which they
earn a living, support a business, or feed themselves.
Given the importance of water in the lives and occupations of our
citizens, it is understandable that, starting in the 1970's the nation
began the work of restoring its water quality with such great, albeit
incomplete, success. The strength of our economy in the postwar era,
creating both the desire and the means of cleaning up our waters, had a
lot to do with it. But it wasn't just the money. It was the love of our
country and its beautiful waters.
Many commentators have noted the evolving nature of the challenges
to further improvements in water quality. We need to look beyond the
traditional discharge pipe to more generalized, diffuse runoff. There
is also the need to look at the entire watershed to assess the most
cost-effective means of reducing a target pollutant. These and other
challenges, such as restoring contaminated sediments and preventing air
deposition of pollutants to water, will require new and creative ways
of meeting our responsibilities of stewardship.
I hope to contribute to the search for solutions to the water
quality challenges of the day, working closely with the White House,
Governor Whitman and this committee to involve stakeholders from the
public and private sectors, from State and local government, and from
inside and outside of government.
Working together, I believe we can identify and implement
successful strategies to maintain and restore the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of our waters. No doubt, many of these
strategies will be tailored to specific problems in specific
communities. Hence, the importance of the watershed as a social and
hydrological reality. Here is where communities, neighbor to neighbor,
can engage, educate and persuade one another in a mutual quest for
shared goals.
There are, of course, other problems, national in scope, where the
Federal role is a significant one. This committee has developed
legislation directing the Environmental Protection Agency to work with
States, tribes and other Federal agencies to help finance water
infrastructure, to set national drinking water standards, to protect
wetlands, to control discharges from industries and sewage treatment
plants, and to reduce nonpoint pollution. The impact of air pollutants,
such as mercury or nitrogen, on water quality also requires national
attention. This is a classic, cross-media problem, and we will need a
coordinated approach to addressing pollutants which are a threat to
both air and water.
Americans view conservation and environmental protection as
important elements of the public agenda. They look to public officials
to harmonize these priorities with social and economic objectives. This
is a task of great difficulty, but one well worth the effort.
I will strive to meet these challenges while relying on the best
available science and economic analysis with due regard for the
statutory directives of the Congress.
I would be honored to work with this committee to accomplish the
hard work of protecting and restoring our nation's water quality. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses by G. Tracy Mehan III to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. Water infrastructure was a priority when I was chairman
and will continue to be my priority because of the great need this
country currently faces. In the initial hearings it became clear that
we are faced with a great economic need in the area of drinking and
wastewater infrastructure. How do you see the role of the Federal
Government in addressing the $1 trillion need that exists for drinking
and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years? What role do you
see the States, rate-payers, and the private sector playing in the goal
of revitalizing our water infrastructure?
Response. The Administrator has invited all interested parties to
engage in a national dialog to address future needs for water and
wastewater infrastructure. As a first step, we are conducting an
analysis to make sure we understand the challenge facing us as clearly
as possible.
I would prefer to wait until I see the results of that analysis
before offering specific policy recommendations. However, as a general
principle, I believe all stakeholders, including the Federal
Government, will have to do their share I further believe that
increased funding, by itself, is not the entire answer. We also need to
consider technological and management innovations to reduce costs and
to assure that the available funding is used efficiently to meet the
most important priorities.
Question 2. Do you feel the State Revolving Fund should be the
source of financing for both drinking and wastewater infrastructure?
What role do you see grants playing?
Response. The Clean Water and Safe Water State Revolving Funds have
been highly successful mechanisms for financing wastewater and drinking
water infrastructure. In terms of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), I think the State Revolving Funds should be the vehicles for
delivering infrastructure financial assistance. I would note that
several other Federal agencies, for example, the Departments of
Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development, also have significant
programs that provide financial assistance for infrastructure
construction. I look forward to working with Congress and the
Administration to delineate the right balance of grants, loans, and
other funding mechanisms.
Question 3. Many of the current problems facing the water community
fundamentally come down to a lack of resources. CSOs, SSOs,
infrastructure, nutrient management all required huge financial
commitments. One of the greatest challenges we face is how to ensure
clean, safe water with very limited budgets and without forcing large
increases on ratepayers. Therefore a certain amount of flexibility must
be worked into the system and new, more cost-effective technologies
found. How can we provide both flexibility and resources without
heavily impacting small towns and disadvantaged communities?
Response. I agree that a potential increase in user charges is a
significant issue. I think technological and management innovations to
reduce costs and increase efficiencies are a necessary part of
addressing future investment, as well as operation and maintenance,
needs. I also think that we should explore improvements in the State
Revolving Funds, for example, reduced or negative interest rates or
principal forgiveness, that would enable States to tailor more flexible
funding packages for small and disadvantaged communities.
Question 4. There has been a backlog of NPDES permits for quite
some time and now with the CAFO rule, Tulloch-fix rule, wetland NWP
rule and others the States and EPA will have even more permits to issue
or reissue. How will you address this problem?
Response. Eliminating the permit backlog will require intense
management focus to accomplish. This was the lesson learned in Michigan
where the backlog was eliminated. I hope to bring the same intensity to
the challenge at EPA. EPA began an aggressive effort to reduce the
existing backlog of expired NPDES permits in late 1998. In 1999, the
Office of Wastewater Management formed a workgroup to assess the
problem and to develop a national strategy in cooperation with its
NPDES State partners.
In addition to the national strategy, each EPA Region has developed
State-specific plans to describe how each State in the Region would
meet the backlog reduction targets. As new rules are finalized, the
Agency will evaluate the adequacy of State grant programs during its
annual budget review. Overall, the Agency will continue to rely on
general permits where possible, rather than individual ones, to meet
its responsibilities under the law.
The Agency will continue to actively track and manage permit
issuance efforts, and will work closely with our State partners to
implement the national and State-specific backlog reduction strategies.
______
Responses by G. Tracy Mehan III to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. For many years we have focused on wastewater when we
talk about water infrastructure. I am concerned that we have not paid
appropriate attention to water supply. Last year there was a provision
in the Estuaries bill which authorized an EPA pilot program for
alternative water supply projects. What is the status of developing
regulations to administer this program?
Response. The Agency currently has general grant regulations that
could be applied in the administration of this program should the
program receive a direct appropriation from Congress. Many of the types
of alternative water source projects envisioned by this program are
currently eligible, at the discretion of the States, under the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund program. These include water conservation,
wastewater treatment, and wastewater reclamation and reuse.
Question 2. What do you think is the role of the Federal
Government, specifically EPA, in ensuring adequate water supply to
communities?
A. is EPA the best agency to deal with water supply?
B. Are other agencies better equipped to manage water supply
projects?
Response. The Federal Government has provided substantial resources
to ensure adequate water supplies to communities. These resources have
been provided by the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, the Rural Utility Service and in limited cases of
water contamination, through EPA's Superfund program. I am willing to
begin a dialog with you to explore what the future role for the Federal
Government is in ensuring adequate water supplies for communities.
______
Responses by G. Tracy Mehan III to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Currently, the EPA is considering publishing a proposed
regulation on sanitary sewer overflows. It is my understanding that the
regulation as currently drafted will place all municipalities in the
United States in immediate noncompliance, and thus will face
significant opposition and legal challenges from the regulated
community, flow would you work with groups such as the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and other associations to develop a
sound and effective proposal?
Response. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are a serious
environmental concern in some parts of the country. They can release
pathogens in places where people may be directly exposed to disease-
causing microorganisms. I am interested in working with all interested
parties to craft approaches that will address this problem. The current
draft of the proposed rule is consistent with, but adds more specifics
to, current requirements for control of SSOs. It resulted from numerous
discussions from 1995 to 1999 with a Federal Advisory Subcommittee that
EPA formed to provide insights into potential regulatory approaches for
SSOs. The Subcommittee. which included several municipal groups in its
membership, including the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA), endorsed the above approach unanimously.
EPA is currently considering how best to proceed with the proposed
rule. EPA staff has discussed several alternatives with AMSA and other
interested parties and I will discuss options with these stakeholders
before recommending to the Administrator how best to proceed.
Question 2. Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) should not be at
risk of enforcement where reasonable water quality standards, including
appropriate wet weather standards, are attained. As you know, many
POTWs, whether in a separate or a combined sewer system, use
recombination of treated and partially treated effluent to protect
water quality standards cost-effectively. Full secondary treatment in
all flow conditions is not necessary. Will you provide flexibility in
the recombination policy to ensure that the EPA does not require costly
construction for treatment that goes beyond reasonable water quality
standards?
Response. NPDES authorities have considerable flexibility through
the permitting process to account for different peak flow scenarios
that provide adequate capacity consistent with generally accepted good
engineering practices and criteria for long-term design. I believe that
peak wet weather discharges from POTWs could be approved in an NPDES
permit as long as the unique design considerations are clearly outlined
during permit development and where the permit ensures compliance with
the secondary treatment regulation (40 CFR Part 133) and/or any more
stringent limitations necessary to meet water quality standards.
__________
Statement of Judith E. Ayres, Nominated to be Assistant Administrator
of the Office of International Activities, Environmental Protection
Agency
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am
honored to have the opportunity to appear before this committee to seek
your confirmation to serve as the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Assistant Administrator for the Office of International
Activities. It is a distinct honor to have been nominated by President
George Bush and to have the support of Governor Christine Todd Whitman.
If the Senate confirms my nomination, I also look forward to working
closely with the members of this committee, and other members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
I believe that the Office of International Activities in EPA is a
place where a common understanding and approach can be developed to
address the many global environmental problems that confront us. If
confirmed, I pledge to use my experience and talented staff to promote
a spirit of environmental stewardship which reflects Administration
priorities.
Regarding my experience, with an academic background in the
biological sciences and public administration, I have worked in the
environmental area, both in the public and private sectors, since the
1970's. My work has spanned from Washington, DC. to Alaska and the
Pacific Rim, and into Central Europe, Mexico and Central America. The
issues addressed have been numerous and varied, from the preservation
of sea turtles and bird habitat to cholera outbreaks and Superfund. I
have been privileged to work both at the U.S. Department of Interior
and the Environmental Protection Agency. As Regional Administrator for
EPA Region IX (1983-88), I managed a staff of some 950 career civil
servants and a budget of $350 million, heading an office that was
responsible for regulating air and water pollution and hazardous waste
in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Native American Tribes under
U.S. law, and the American Protectorates in the Pacific. The Regional
Administrator's office also managed international programs with Mexico.
Today, in seeking the committee's confirmation, I offer as
qualifications my academic background, my public and private sector
environmental experience, and my record in both venues as a proven and
fair manager committed to doing the public's business in a public way
in pursuit of the Administration's environmental priorities.
Environmental protection and gain are at the heart of EPA's major
program areas. Each program carries an essential international
dimension: addressing air pollution, water pollution, solid and
hazardous waste, toxic chemicals, emergency response and pesticides.
The international dimension is important because we know that what goes
on in backyards half-way around the world may also end up in our own.
For example, transboundary air pollution emanating from Asia can affect
air quality on our western shores;
<bullet> protection of the Rio Grande and the Great Lakes requires
cooperation with Mexico and Canada;
<bullet> disposal of hazardous waste is governed by our agreements
with industrialized countries around the world;
<bullet> the new treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs),
which Governor Whitman recently signed in Stockholm, addresses health
and environmental problems of pesticides, industrial chemicals and
industrial by-products;
<bullet> imported food consumed by children and other vulnerable
populations can be contaminated by pesticides banned in the United
States for health reasons but are still in use in other food-producing
countries; and
<bullet> international trade and investment rules and
environmental rules will require careful attention to assure that they
are mutually supportive.
In short, it is increasingly difficult to protect human health and
the environment in the United States without simultaneously engaging
with other countries to do the same.
As a nation, we have learned that solving global environmental
problems related to the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth's
biological wealth requires concentrated international efforts. For the
International Office at EPA, environmental gain is sought in the
international arena outside our country's boundaries through the
Agency's collaboration with the Congress, other Federal agencies,
scientists, the financial and business communities, NGO's, and
philanthropic leaders.
I would also offer comments on the people of the Office of
International Activities. This is an exceptionally talented, dedicated
and professional group of public servants who seek a well-managed
office with challenging and interesting work, the resources to get it
done, and a work environment that is fair and equitable. President
Bush, Governor Whitman, and I commit both to the committee and to the
Office of International Activities that going forward, the office will
be well-managed, all managers and employees will be held accountable,
the work will be challenging, and the work environment will be fair and
equitable.
In closing, I have chosen to seek confirmation and re-enter public
service because I believe public service to be the noblest of
professions and I believe protection of the environment, in all its
many dimensions, to be the most vital of endeavors.
Thank you. I shall be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
Statement of Donald R. Schregardus, Nominee for Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection
Agency
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this committee; it is an
honor and pleasure to appear before you this morning as the nominee to
be EPA's Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance. I am honored and excited that President Bush and
Governor Whitman have invited me to join the Administration to improve
public health and the environment in this great nation. I am especially
pleased to be joined today by my daughter Sarah.
Compliance and enforcement have, and always will be, fundamental
components of our national environmental program. Governor Whitman has
expressed her commitment to a strong Federal enforcement program and so
do I. Compliance and enforcement has been a cornerstone of EPA programs
to improve public health and the environment from its beginning. The
American people trust and rely on EPA to protect the land, air, and
water where they live. I understand this important responsibility and
if confirmed will do everything in my power to meet this
responsibility.
To this end, I believe my 25 years of experience in Federal and
State environmental regulatory agencies would prove a valuable benefit
to the Administration. I started my career at EPA at a field office
conducting environmental studies and investigations. While developing
permits and enforcement cases I learned first hand the importance of
good science in environmental decisionmaking. As Chief of the Water
Division Compliance Section in EPA Region 5, I managed one of the most
successful efforts to bring municipalities into compliance with the
Clean Water Act. We set records for the most penalties and civil
actions as compared to previous periods at the Region. As a result,
water quality improved across the Region. The keys to this success were
a clear, consistent, well publicized goal; accurate tracking of the
universe of facilities; and close planning and cooperation with States
and the Department of Justice.
As Director of Ohio EPA, I developed or expanded programs in
pollution prevention, technical assistance and environmental education.
I improved the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking by
establishing a program to evaluate the safety of sport-caught fish,
implementing a program to evaluate the quality of all 6000 public water
supplies in Ohio, placing inspectors at each of Ohio's commercial
hazardous waste disposal facilities, tripling the size of Ohio's
landfill inspection program and developing new protocols for monitoring
the quality of wetlands. With the support of then-Governor Voinovich,
we added nearly 400 new people to the Agency, half of which were placed
in Ohio EPA's district offices where they conduct inspections and
monitoring. We developed new programs to clean up Brownfields, manage
and cleanup tire dumps, and ensure the safety of underground injection
wells. On the management side, I implemented a quality management
program throughout the Agency which improved processes, performance and
customer satisfaction. The program received unanimous endorsement by a
public advisory group established by the general assembly. Throughout
my service as Director I recognized the importance of public
involvement. I expanded public involvement in the rulemaking and
program development processes and started or supported 25 community
based groups to assist the Agency in studying and improving water
quality.
The real measure of success of these programs is not in the outputs
but in the outcomes. During my tenure as Director, Ohio, one of the top
manufacturing and energy producing States in the country, for the first
time met all national air quality standards, saw a 50 percent reduction
in toxic releases to the environment and realized a 50 percent increase
in stream miles fully achieving fishable/swimmable Clean Water Act
goals. I am proud of these accomplishments, but more still needs to be
done. I look forward to bringing the knowledge gained from these
successes to apply to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
One area I believe is especially important for the compliance and
enforcement program to focus is on the coordination with the other
offices in the Agency to ensure the Administration has a clear,
consistent national approach to environmental protection. A clear
unified approach to environmental protection helps ensure there are no
surprises and no excuses to environmental compliance. Finally, I will
actively seek the involvement of the States and the public as we
improve and develop new programs.
From my experience, an effective compliance and enforcement program
involves far more than just enforcement orders and lawsuits. Compliance
starts with a clear understanding of regulatory requirements and the
timeframes in which they must be met. Education and compliance
assistance is needed to get the word out clearly and uniformly across
the country. Incentives and voluntary programs can assist communities
and businesses to achieve environmental goals in a cost effective
manner. Plans, goals, tracking and accountability are essential to
follow progress. States, where delegated the national program, must
take the lead. But if requirements are not met, than the full range of
administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement actions must be
considered. If you should honor me by your confirmation, I will work to
improve each of these elements and thereby improve public health and
the environment in a cost effective manner.
I look forward to working with you, Governor Whitman and President
Bush to make the environment better for all Americans. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Donald R. Schregardus to Additional Questions from Senator
Boxer
Question 1. U.S. EPA was petitioned in 1997 to withdraw Ohio's
authority to administer the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act. I understand the matter may
be decided later this year. This petition raises questions about the
past administration of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
program.
Will you ensure if confirmed as Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement that the environmental laws are fully enforced, even if you
disagree with them or believe they should be changed?
Response. Yes, I will vigorously enforce all Federal laws and
regulations.
Question 2. What specific steps will you take to assure Federal
environmental laws are properly enforced throughout the United States?
Response. To ensure Federal laws are properly and consistently
enforced throughout the country, I will follow the steps discussed in
my testimony. Basically, I will ensure that OECA helps implement all of
the following:
<bullet> Assist the regulated community, States, Tribes and EPA
Regional offices as necessary, to clearly define national priorities
and requirements through development and issuance of guidance, permits,
training and technical assistance;
<bullet> Develop, implement and track compliance monitoring
programs, including self-monitoring and reporting; EPA and State
inspections; and compliance followup and investigation;
<bullet> Provide compliance assistance and incentives to encourage
compliance with regulatory programs, especially for small communities
and businesses. This includes training, speeches, guidance material,
financial assistance, and individual assistance;
<bullet> Ensure consistent application of Federal laws where
States have been authorized to administer and enforce the Federal
program. This role will include regular tracking and evaluation of
State programs, along with technical assistance, training and financial
support;
<bullet> Make regular visits to the Regional Offices to evaluate
performance and resolve issues. Develop guidance to assist new programs
or address critical issues;
<bullet> Initiate Federal enforcement actions whenever necessary
to support national priorities, interstate or multi-State compliance
problems, or where States have failed to take timely and appropriate
enforcement action.
Question 3. As you know, there is a Georgia Pacific Company plant
(GP) located in the south side of Columbus, Ohio. This plant has bad a
history of problems-most notably that it has exploded twice-first in
1984 (before you assumed the directorship at OEPA) and again in 1997
(during your tenure as director). In between these two explosions, the
plant released tons of chemicals in spills and other un-permitted
releases in numerous major incidents.
Please explain the circumstances surrounding chemical spills and
other unpermitted chemical releases from the GP plant and indicate when
and how the situation was rectified by OEPA. If the situation was not
rectified, please explain why OEPA did not rectify the situation.
Response. See below.
Question 4. Were the people of the south side of Columbus properly
notified regarding these incidents at GP. If not, was OEPA aware of
this deficiency and was the situation rectified? lithe situation was
rectified, please describe when and how. In particular, what specific
stops did OEPA take to ensure that the community was informed of what
steps OEPA would take to ensure that GP would operate safely?
Responses to Questions 3 and 4. At OEPA these types of activities
are typically handled at the Division level. For example, spills are
routinely handled by the Division of Emergency and Remedial Response
(DERR), and unpermitted air releases would be monitored by the Air
Office, and would be reported in the Toxics Release inventory (TRI).
While as Director I was not involved on a daily basis with the
facility, my understanding of the facts regarding the issues you raised
are as follows:
<bullet> In May 1991 (I was Director of Ohio EPA at this time),
Georgia Pacific was under orders from Ohio EPA to clean up a pipe line
spill which had occurred in 1990 including pumping and treating
groundwater to drinking water standards. Another spill occurred in
August 1991 which required continuation of the pump and treat system.
The treatment and cleanup ended in December 1991 and a letter stating
the company fulfilled its terms of the 1990 consent order was sent to
the company in February 1992. OEPA subsequently tested 5 nearby
residential wells in March 1992 and verified all wells were below
drinking water standards. The results of all samples were sent to the
residents and the company in July 1992.
<bullet> In December 1994, OEPA issued an Administrative Order to
Georgia Pacific to perform a complete a remedial investigation/
feasibility study of the Columbus Plant, based upon 8 known spills at
the facility between 1976 and 1991. OEPA issued a press release at that
time that summarized the site's operating history and the terms of the
orders. Interim results of the site investigation were sent from OEPA
in March 1997 to residents explaining the study and groundwater data
collected to date. The second phase of the site assessment was
temporarily interrupted in September 1997 when the second explosion
occurred at the plant.
<bullet> Regarding air emissions and odors, which were the major
complaint received by Ohio EPA from the neighbors, Georgia Pacific had
unpermitted releases in March 1994, May 1995 and April 1996. As a
result in May 1996, at the request of OEPA, the Ohio Attorney General
entered into a consent agreement with Georgia. Pacific that required
them to test and upgrade their air pollution control equipment and leak
detection systems. Georgia Pacific was fined $86,250, of which up to
$66,250 could be suspended for quick installation and testing of the
pollution control equipment Ohio EPA explained the settlement and the
status of the pollution control improvements at the site at an October
1996 meeting of the Marion Franklin Civil Association.
<bullet> With respect to the September 1997 explosion of the
reactor at the GP plant, OEPA attended several public meetings on the
matter, and regularly provided information to the public, through
monthly meetings, on the explosion, the cleanup, and the company's
regulatory responsibilities for restarting the facility. OEPA held a
public hearing on the permits-to-operate for the repaired kettles;
public hearings were not typical, but because of the level of community
interest, we felt they were appropriate in this instance. Also, based
upon the recommendation of my staff, I required GP to apply for a new
permit for the rebuilding of the reactor that was destroyed in the
explosion. There was significant public interest in the facility at the
time, and the permit application process provides for additional public
involvement opportunities and a public hearing. When I left OEPA, GP
had not yet submitted a permit application to rebuild the damaged unit.
Question 5. Last October, a Federal Labor Department administrative
law judge that found that officials from the OBPA had ``unlawfully
retaliated'' against an OEPA employee, Paul Jayko, who was involved in
the investigation of a high incidence of leukemia in Marion, OH.
In his decision, Judge Thomas Phalen, Jr. found that OEPA had
limited the investigation into whether several contaminated sites in
the community could be the cause of the health problems, and retaliated
against Mr. Jayko by coercing and restraining him in the course of his
conducting an environmental investigation protected under the
``whistleblower'' portions of seven Federal environmental laws.
Please fully describe your involvement in any decisions to limit
the scope of the OEPA's investigation into the potential environmental
causes of the health concerns in Marion.
Response. I had no direct involvement and limited indirect
involvement in decisions to address the scope of the Marion
investigation. Governor Voinovich placed the Ohio Department of Health
in charge of a multi-agency task force to investigate the causes of
higher leukemia rates among students graduating from Marion High
School. Based on the recommendations of the District Officer Chief Ed
Hannett, Paul Steers, Assistant Chief of the OEPA Northwest District
Office, was placed in charge of Ohio EPA's team of scientists and
investigators who worked with the Department of Health. Decisions on
the scope and steps of the investigation were discussed and made at
regular joint agency team meetings. The Department of Health made the
recommendation and the team concurred with the decision to focus the
investigation on chemicals suspected of causing leukemia (i.e.
radiation and various organic chemicals).
On one occasion, before a public meeting where potential pathways
of exposure were to be discussed, I directed Ohio EPA's field team to
collect drinking water samples at the school and in the community, and
have them analyzed on a priority basis for possible contamination. The
results, which showed no chemical contamination of the drinking water,
were given to the public.
Question 6. Please fully describe your involvement in the decisions
to discipline Paul Jayko and remove him from his position as
coordinator for the Marion site.
Response. Upon learning of allegations that Mr. Jayko consumed
alcoholic drinks while on duty for the State and had improperly charged
the State for food and alcohol, I instructed the, employee's manager to
follow State personnel practices, investigate the incident and make
recommendations based on the facts.
An incident report was prepared by Jeff Steers, OEPA Assistant
District Chief, and submitted to OBPA's Human Resources Office. The
Director of Personnel investigated the incident and held a
predisciplinary hearing with Mr. Jayko. Immediately after the hearing,
Mr. Jayko announced to the newspapers that he was a whistleblower.
Human Resources Office Chief, Bill Kirk, subsequently submitted a
recommendation to me for disciplinary action against Mr. Jayko, based
on his behavior pertaining to the purchase and consumption of alcohol
while on duty for the State, I signed and approved the recommendation
after obtaining continuation from OEPA's legal office that the
recommendation was consistent with disciplinary responses for similar
incidents and that whistle blower standards did not apply.
Question 7. Do you agree with the whistleblower protection
provision of Federal environmental laws?
Response. I agree with the Federal whistle blower protection
provisions.
__________
Responses of Donald R. Schregardus to Additional Questions from Senator
Chafee
Question 1a. Congress added the Innocent Landowner defense to
CERCLA over 14 years ago. The purpose was to remove from liability
purchasers of real estate who, among other things, at the time of the
purchase did not know or have reason to know that, the property was
contaminated. It is my understanding that EPA has rarely, if ever,
officially determined that a purchaser of contaminated real estate was
not liable under CERCLA because it qualified for the Innocent Landowner
defense. In addition, no commercial real estate developer has ever
qualified for the Innocent Landowner defense. Do you believe that the
Innocent Landowner defense can apply to a commercial real estate
developer?
Response. The innocent landowner defense can apply to a commercial
real estate developer. If a commercial real estate developer acquires
contaminated property, after having made all appropriate inquiry, then
they would qualify for the defense to liability. In fact, EPA is aware
of several cases in which a commercial entity has qualified for the
defense.
Question 1b. Under section 101(35)(B) of CERCLA, a purchaser of
land establishes that he had no reason to know that there were
hazardous substances on the property if, at the time of the
acquisition, he made ``all appropriate inquiry into the previous
ownership and uses of the property, ``consistent with good commercial
or customary practice'' at the time of transfer. What factors do you
believe EPA should use to determine ``good commercial or customary
practice'' at the time of transfer?
Response. Under current law, EPA evaluates all facts and
circumstances surrounding a person's inquiry into the property. In 1989
EPA published guidance concerning the Innocent Landowner defense. The
guidance describes the statutory factors relevant to ``good commercial
or customary practice,'' for example specialized knowledge or
experience, the relationship of the purchase price to the value of the
property if uncontaminated, commonly known or reasonably ascertainable
information about the property, the obviousness of the presence or
likely presence of contamination, and the ability to detect such
contamination by appropriate inspection.
Question 2. Do you believe that a real estate developer who, at the
time of purchase, does not know and has no reason to know of the
presence of hazardous substances on the property and then unknowingly
moves during construction soil that later is found to be contaminated,
is liable under CERCLA as a ``generator?''
Response. It is difficult to fully evaluate the liability of a
person from a brief hypothetical example. Therefore, I am unable to
draw any conclusions about a person's liability if he or she'' . . .
unknowingly moves during construction soil that later is found to be
contaminated . . .'' As a general matter, however, CERCLA requires a
person to exercise ``due care'' with respect to hazardous substances on
their property.
______
Responses of Donald R. Schregardus to Additional Questions from Senator
Corzine
Question 1a. In a November 7, 1998 letter to the Columbus Dispatch,
you commented extensively on the ``NOx SIP call'' that the U.S. EPA had
recently finalized. You stated in that letter that ``There are several
fundamental flaws in the U.S. EPA's plan. The science is faulty. The
Federal plan is based on the notion that air pollutants from the
Midwest cause ground-level ozone to form in the Northeastern States.''
Do you still consider the notion that air pollutants from the Midwest
cause ground to form in the Northeastern States to be faulty science?
Response. Regarding the impacts of air pollutants from the Midwest
on ground-level ozone in Northeastern States, Ohio utilized the same
models agreed to and accepted by the 26-State committee called the
Ozone Transport Assessment Group. This model showed Ohio's emissions
bad a relatively small impact on ground-level ozone in the Northeast. I
do not know of any better air-quality modeling tool.
Question 1b. In that same letter, you stated that ``Ohio industrial
and utility emissions contribute less than 4 percent to smog formation
along the eastern seaboard.'' Do you still believe this to be the case?
If not, what do you believe the contribution of Ohio sources to eastern
seaboard smog formation to be?
Response. I have not been involved with this issue since December
1998. However, I am not aware that U.S. EPA ever directly disputed
Ohio's relative contribution to Northeast air quality.
Question 1c. You also speculated in that letter that ``it appears
that the U.S. EPA intentionally set an unreachable deadline so that the
Federal Government can come in and usurp the States' rights under the
Federal Clean Air Act and enforce the U.S. EPA plan.'' You further
referred to the plan as ``draconian,'' and stated that it ``lacks both
common sense and sound science.'' Do you still hold these views?
Response. I still believe the time given to the States to develop a
control program was too short to adequately consider control options,
develop rules, including potentially an emission-trading program and to
provide adequate public involvement in the rulemaking process.
Question 1d. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided in EPA's
favor on the NOx SIP call. Not all of the States have submitted
revisions for their State Implementation Plans, and the deadline is
approaching. Are you committed to enforcing the plan by ensuring that
U.S. EPA prepares and implements a Federal Implementation Plan for
States that fail to submit their own plans?
Response. Initially, U.S. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation will
have the lead in preparing Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs). OECA
will support the Office Of Air and Radiation as needed in preparing
FIPs. OECA monitors compliance with the FIP and if necessary, enforces
the requirements of the FIP. I am fully committed to carry out OECA's
responsibility under the Clean Air Act.
Question 2a. U.S. EPA was petitioned in 1997 to withdraw Ohio's
authority to administer the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act and Clean Water Act. Region 5 has been investigating
this matter and plans to conclude its review later this year. If you
were confirmed as Assistant Administrator, would you recuse yourself
from any discussions regarding this issue?
Response. I have not worked for the State of Ohio for over 2 years
and I have never had any direct involvement in this review. While there
appears to be no legal reason to recuse myself; to avoid any appearance
of impropriety, if confirmed, I will recuse myself from any discussions
on this matter.
Question 2b. If the U.S. EPA were to withdraw any of these
authorities, would you move in aggressively to enforce these laws in
Ohio?
Response. I would make every effort to vigorously enforce those
laws in Ohio.
Question 3. During your tenure as director of Ohio EPA, you moved
staff from enforcement to the State's Voluntary Action Program for
brownfields. If confirmed as Assistant Administrator, would you seek to
make similar changes at OECA (i.e., moving staff from enforcement to
compliance assurance)?
Response. I have not yet reviewed and evaluated the resources
within OECA. Based on a recent GAO report, however, one of my early
priorities will be to evaluate resource allocations based upon national
priorities and regional needs. I will seek to make the best use of
public funds. At this time, I have no plan to move resources from
Superfund enforcement to brownfields.
Question 4a. When you testified before the U.S. House of
Representatives on February 14, 1997, you stated that Superfund should
be changed to ``eliminate the duplicative oversight by both the Federal
and State governments'' and that ``Superfund's efficiency suffers from
the current overlapping statutory roles for the Federal and State
governments.'' With respect to the so-called ``finality'' issue at non-
Superfund sites, you further stated that ``we would need to be
satisfied that the Federal Government would not be dictating the
administrative process States choose to achieve protective cleanups.''
In light of these statements, what are your views of S. 350, the
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001,
which has been endorsed by Administrator Whitman?
Response. I support S. 350, and share Governor Whitman's desire and
the President's desire to see brownfields legislation enacted this
year. With respect to the process that States use to ensure protective
cleanups, S. 350 would allow the States the flexibility to use their
own procedures for cleaning up brownfields sites, provided the State
program is designed to protect public health and the environment.
Question 4b. Notwithstanding the above-referenced statements from
your 1997 House testimony, do you commit to using Federal authorities
at brownfields sites under the conditions outlined in S. 350 if you are
confirmed and S. 350 becomes law?
Response. If I am confirmed, I commit to fully enforce all
environmental laws, including S. 350 if enacted. As for the Federal
authorities reserved in S. 350, I commit to using them in all
appropriate circumstances.
Question 5a. As the Director of the Ohio EPA, you had the U.S. EPA
behind you as an enforcement ``backstop.'' As the Assistant
Administrator at OECA, you would be in charge of this Federal backstop.
How would this fundamentally different role affect your view of the
proper balance between enforcement and compliance assistance? Do you
believe that State environmental agencies and the U.S. EPA should have
the same approach in this regard?
Response. As you point out in your question, U.S. EPA has a key
enforcement role of backing up the States when they are unwilling or
unable to enforce Federal law Regarding compliance assistance, I
believe OECA has an important role in developing technical materials
and training to assist the States with providing compliance assistance.
EPA needs to recognize and support States' compliance assistance
programs and to provide direct assistance in States that are not
delegated the Federal program. OECA focuses compliance assistance on
priority sectors and environmental issues while encouraging States to
provide most of the direct assistance.
Question 6. The U.S. EPA took New Source Review enforcement actions
against 32 power plants last year. As Assistant Administrator, would
you advocate continuing these actions? Would you advocate bringing
similar actions in the future?
Response. I have had no prior involvement with this issue, however,
I am aware that EPA has been enforcing the New Source Review (NSR)
requirements in a number of industry sectors, including power plants.
The U.S. EPA, led by the Office of Air and Radiation, and the U.S.
Department of Justice are currently reviewing the NSR program,
therefore, it is premature to advocate any position regarding future
actions until the reviews are complete and I can assess them.
Question 7. As Director of Ohio EPA, you opposed the 1997 U.S. EPA
standards for ozone and particulate matter and supported Ohio's efforts
to overturn these standards in court. As the head of OECA, will you
aggressively enforce the implementation of these standards?
Response. f confirmed, I will vigorously enforce all Federal
regulatory requirements.
Question 8. Under your leadership at Ohio EPA, the Ohio EPA Small
Business Assistance Office developed a written confidentiality policy
that states: ``Recognizing the importance of helping businesses feel
comfortable about using the services of the SBAO, written
confidentiality procedures for the office were finalized in 1996. The
SBAO's internal confidentiality procedures means that information
provided to the office is not turned over to agency inspectors or
enforcement staff:'' As Assistant Administrator, would you advocate
development of a similar policy at the U.S. EPA?
Response. EPA offers many resources--which small businesses may use
anonymously--to assist small businesses comply with environmental laws.
For example, EPA's existing Small Business Ombudsman (SBO) is a well-
known resource in the small business community which small businesses
may access anonymously. EPA's SBO administers a free hotline answering
fast-specific compliance questions; callers may remain anonymous at
their own discretion. EPA's Small Business Policy also allows a small
business to obtain anonymous government-sponsored compliance
assistance, or confidential compliance assistance from an independent
State compliance assistance provider, and still get penalty reductions
or even complete waivers if the small business discloses and corrects
their violations. I would want to consult with the Agency and review
the success of these programs before advocating any specific changes to
the program.
Question 9. As director of Ohio EPA you supported Ohio's audit
privilege law, which allows polluters to decide if certain information
about pollution can be kept from Ohio EPA; it also gives companies
immunity for certain violations As Assistant Administrator, would you
advocate development of a similar law at the Federal level?
Response. I support incentives that encourage companies to evaluate
their own compliance and take necessary actions to return to compliance
if problems are identified. I also understand the Federal Government's
responsibility to ensure that delegated State programs have the
necessary authorities to enforce those delegated programs. I do not
believe that Federal audit legislation is necessary. Most States are
already operating under an audit policy or law that is consistent with
the minimum requirements for authorization of Federal environmental
programs.
Question 10. As Assistant Administrator, how would you handle
enforcement issues that arise in States that have immunity and/or audit
privilege? If a State grants immunity to a violator, what criteria
would you use to decide whether US EPA should take an enforcement
action against the violator?
Response. Under current Federal law, States must have adequate
authority to enforce the requirements of any Federal program they are
authorized to administer. EPA retains its independent authority to
enforce environmental protection law in States with audit privilege and
immunity laws. If a State grants immunity to a violator, I would
support EPA taking into consideration whether that action is consistent
with the program requirement as authorized under Federal law. I would
use the criteria that are provided in current EPA regulations, which
specify' the requirements for compliance evaluations and enforcement
authority for specific programs, for example, 40 C.F.R. 271.15-16
(RCRA). If these criteria are not met, EPA has the authority, and I
would certainly consider, taking an. independent enforcement action
against the violator. In all instances, I would ensure that EPA
continues to work closely with any State where this issue arises, to
reach a workable solution.
Question 11. Last October, U.S. Administrative Law Judge Phalen
found that you and other Ohio EPA officials had improperly removed Paul
Jayko from his job after Mr. Jayko undertook an investigation into a
leukemia cancer cluster in Marion, Ohio. In his ruling, Judge Phalen
stated that OEPA issued public statements that ``constitute a
misrepresentation of possible threats to human health. . .'' and that
``It is clear . . . that OEPA held him (Jayko) in. particular disfavor
for reasons that may only be attributed to his vigorous prosecution of
the Marion Investigation . . . while OEPA management wanted to do
something graduated and far less effective.'' Do you agree with these
findings? How would you handle similar situations as OECA Assistant
Administrator?
Response. I do not agree with the Judge's statement that OEPA
misrepresented possible threats to human health. . I believe that
OEPA's investigation into the leukemia cluster, under the direction of
the Ohio Department of Health (ODH), was appropriately carried out.
Governor Voinovich placed the Ohio Department of Health in charge of a
multi-agency task force to investigate the causes of higher leukemia
rates among students graduating from Marion High School. Based on the
recommendations of the District Officer Chief Ed Hannett, Paul Steers,
Assistant Chief of the OEPA Northwest District Office, was placed in
charge of Ohio EPA's tam of scientists and investigators who worked
with the Department of Health. Decisions on the scope and steps of the
investigation were discussed and made at regular joint agency team
meetings. The Department of Health made the recommendation and the team
concurred with the decision to focus the investigation on chemicals
suspected of causing leukemia (i.e. radiation and various organic
chemicals).
It is my understanding that last week the Ohio Department of Health
concluded their 4-year study of leukemia in Marion and did not find a
scientific link between the contamination at the school football field
and the occurrence of leukemia in the students. Direct or second-hand
exposure to tobacco smoke was the most common factor linking the
leukemia victims.
Regarding the findings pertaining to Mr. Jayko, if presented with
similar facts as the OECA Assistant Administrator I would act
similarly. In other words, I would request a fact-based inquiry,
consult legal counsel regarding external factors (such as the
whistleblower protection provisions), follow appropriate personnel
disciplinary procedures, and weigh the recommended course of action
against the particular facts of the case, before making a final
decision.
NOMINATIONS OF THE 107th CONGRESS,
FIRST SESSION
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James Jeffords (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
CONSIDERATION OF THE NOMINATIONS OF BRIG. GEN. EDWIN J. ARNOLD, BRIG.
GEN. CARL A. STROCK, NILS J. DIAZ, MARY E. PETERS, MICHAEL PARKER,
PATRICK HAYES JOHNSON, CRAIG MANSON, AND MARIANNE LAMONT HORINKO
Present: Senators Jeffords, Cochran and Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. The committee will come to order.
I want to welcome our witnesses this morning.
This is an important day as we move forward in this unusual
time. This is the first time the committee has met since the
attack on our country last week, an attack that has changed us
all. In these days ahead, we are going to have to stand
together to show the strength of this country and our people.
We are having this hearing today to get on with the work of
the committee, the Congress and the country. I want each of you
to know that your commitment to public service which is being
demonstrated here today is admirable.
I would like to let everyone know how we are going to
proceed this morning and then I will recognize my fellow
committee members for opening statements. We have two panels.
The first panel will come to the table, each nominee will be
recognized for 5 minutes to give their statement and your full
written statement will be included in the record.
Before you begin, if you could recognize those members of
your family that are with us today, I would have appreciate it.
Do you have members of your family here with you today? Please
introduce them.
Mr. Johnson. My name is Pete Johnson. I'm from Mississippi.
I am the nominee for the Federal Co-Chairman of the Delta
Regional Authority. I have with me my wife of 31 years,
Margaret; I have my daughter, Mary Margaret; and my youngest
daughter, Ann Clark, Ann Clark Downing who was married 3 weeks
ago. Three weeks ago, Mary Margaret announced she would be
getting married as well, so we are really excited. There is a
lot going on in our family.
Thank you.
General Arnold. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any family
members here, though I know my wife, Margaret, would love to be
here. She is currently in Mississippi. My oldest daughter is
home taking care of my granddaughter who was born a month ago,
so they are not with us today.
General Strock. I am Brigadier General Carl Strock,
Director of Military Programs of the Corps of Engineers. I do
not have any family here with me except for my brother in arms,
Ed Arnold. My wife is unpacking boxes as we have recently moved
to the D.C. area.
Mr. Diaz. Mr. Chairman, I am by myself. My wife decided to
stay in Florida to take care of the kids and send me in harms
way on an airplane on Wednesday night so I could do my duty. I
thank you for the opportunity.
Senator Jeffords. I would recognize my fellow colleague,
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
Senator Cochran. I am glad to be here this morning to
introduce to the committee two of my good friends who have been
nominated for important positions in the Administration. Pete
Jackson is in this first panel and the other nominee, Mike
Parker, who will be in the second panel.
Pete has been nominated to be the Federal Co-Chair of the
Delta Regional Authority. As you recall, this was an Agency
established by Congress 2 years ago when President Clinton
signed the legislation. It provides an opportunity for economic
development in the lower Mississippi River Valley. The Delta
region has substantial problems of poverty and infrastructure
requirements that this Authority is charged with addressing.
I am delighted to let the committee know of my high regard
for Pete Johnson. I have known him a long time, he is a close
personal friend. He is very well qualified, in my opinion, for
this important position. He will be working with the Governors
of all of the States in the region and with local development
districts, and other elected officials at the local level
throughout that region in order to identify ways to move this
region forward economically.
It is a big challenge but he has the background,
experience, the intellectual capacity and the determination to
make this succeed that will ensure that this Authority will be
a very important contributor to the economic growth and
development of that region.
Pete has served in local responsibilities at the Chamber of
Commerce in his hometown of Clarksdale in Coahoma County; he
has been head of the Industrial Foundation; he was also named
as chairman of the Mississippi Marketing Council. He has served
our State in an elected capacity winning a statewide election
as State Auditor. During that period of time, he served with
distinction, he reflected credit on all of his friends who
supported his election and he has been someone has been looked
to for leadership at the State and local level for sometime in
our State. He is a lawyer. He has had experience as a banker.
With that and his public experience, I think he is equipped
to do a wonderful job in this new and challenging office.
Let me mention also my high regard for Mike Parker who is
nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works.
Mike is a former Congressman, served 10 years in the House
of Representatives. He is also a good friend of mine and I have
known him for a long time. I think he would be a fine choice in
this job. He has the practical experience of a landowner, a
farmer, a businessman who understands the practicality of
government responsibilities in this area. He is a
conservationist. He is someone who has served on committees
with responsibilities for oversight of the activities of the
Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies with whom he will
be working closely in this capacity.
He is a person who has a lot of determination to succeed,
to do a good job in whatever he is asked to do. He is well
educated. I just think he would be one of the best in this job
that I can think of in my history of serving in the Congress.
Without qualification or hesitation, I recommend him highly
to the committee and hope the committee will look with favor on
his nomination and be able to report him to the Senate for
confirmation at an early date.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. I want to thank you all.
We will interrupt temporarily for the two votes. As soon as
I get back, we will go right at it. Sorry for this
interruption.
[Recess.]
Senator Jeffords. We will go through the formal process now
of listening to you. After each of you has given your
statement, I will ask you two obligatory questions, then
members will be recognized to ask questions. When questions
have been completed, we will call the second panel to the
table.
There may be members who are unable to be here today who
may want to submit questions to you, to answer for the record.
I would like to have all questions from the members by the end
of the day so that each of you can answer them as soon as
possible and we can move things along as expeditiously as
possible.
The committee ha scheduled a business meeting for next
Tuesday. If we have received your answers by then, we will
consider your nomination at that time.
Before us today, we have Brigadier General Edwin J. Arnold
to be a member and President of the Mississippi River
Commission; Nils J. Diaz to be a member of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; Patrick Hayes Johnson to be Federal Co-
Chairperson of the Delta Regional Authority; and Brigadier
General Carl A. Strock to be a member of the Mississippi River
Commission.
I will start first with General Arnold.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL EDWIN J. ARNOLD, NOMINATED TO BE
A MEMBER AND PRESIDENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION
General Arnold. I have a statement I would like to submit
for the record and I would like to make some brief remarks.
Senator Jeffords. Your statement will be accepted as part
of the record. Please proceed.
General Arnold. Let me begin by saying I am extremely
honored to be here and I would like to thank the committee for
conducting these hearings in these very troublesome times.
I would also like to state that I am extremely proud to be
an American and doubly proud to be able to wear this uniform in
the service of our country. I have worn the uniform for 29\1/2\
years and I feel the training I have received in the military
has made me very qualified not only to lead but to also analyze
situations and to act decisively and confidently in times of
emergency.
I have learned through my military experience how to keep
focused, how to review problems, seek input, build consensus,
but most importantly how to serve the people of this great
nation. These traits that I have learned in my military
training have well prepared me to assume division command in
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, first, in 1998 in the
Southwestern Division in Dallas, Texas serving the people of
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.
In 2000, a year ago, I moved over to the Mississippi Valley
Division in Vicksburg, Mississippi where my responsibilities
require me to watch over the Mississippi River and the entire
valley. I will tell you in that year I have learned quite a bit
about the Mississippi River, but more importantly I have
learned there is much more to be learned. It is an extremely
challenging environment that the Mississippi River Commission
has been charged to work in and to try to understand.
Some of the significant challenges we face are that the
Mississippi River has been declared both a nationally
significant ecosystem and a nationally significant navigation
system. Those two designations can very often be competing.
Our challenge and what we believe is our mission is how to
make those two aspects work in harmony so that we can preserve
them both, not only for ourselves but for the people who follow
us. We are not necessarily talking about balance or compromise
in that harmony but developing synergy so that we have a win-
win situation.
Trying to do that development is especially critical now as
we look at the economic stability of the nation and the value
of waterborne transportation to that stability through the
center part of the country. I believe the Mississippi River
Commission is well suited to help us achieve that balance. The
Commission conducts public meetings twice annually at major
cities along the river where people come to tell us what they
believe the needs of the valley are. Seeking that public input
and getting stakeholders to the table are extremely important
as we manage this important resource for the nation. It helps
develop those win-win alternatives. If I am confirmed as the
President of the Mississippi River Commission, I will pursue
those goals and work diligently to keep that resource viable
for the nation.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to speak with
you today and I would be glad to answer any of your questions
at this time.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz?
STATEMENT OF NILS J. DIAZ, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Diaz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too appreciate the opportunity to appear before you at
this difficult and taxing time for our nation. Continuing
government functions is one of the many ways of showing the
strength of America.
Ten days ago seems like a long time. I provided a written
statement summarizing my qualifications as well as a few
pertinent views. I would respectfully request that it be
entered into the record.
Senator Jeffords. It will be done.
Mr. Diaz. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the experience and
I am committed to fulfill the responsibilities of the office of
Commissioner of the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. I am prepared to face both the existing and the new
challenges with the requisite accountability and transparency.
There are many important issues with which the Commission will
be dealing in the coming months. In particular, although I have
not been a member of the Commission since June 30, I recognize
that the recent terrorist attacks on our country affect all of
us and affect all we do. I am certain the Commission is and
will be giving its utmost attention to assessing implications
for the Commission's programs. I believe the safeguarding of
nuclear facilities and material is of vital concern to the
nation and is a key component of the Agency's mission to
protect public health and safety and the common defense and
security.
I stand ready to serve the nation and if confirmed, I can
assure you that I will be devoted to addressing the complex and
emerging issues before the Commission. I will be available, as
I have always been, to members of the committee.
Again, thank you. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have for me.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Johnson?
STATEMENT OF PATRICK HAYES JOHNSON, NOMINATED TO BE FEDERAL
COCHAIRPERSON, DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some prepared remarks as well that I would like to
submit for the record and I would like to make some other
comments if I may.
Senator Jeffords. They will be accepted.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
want to join with my fellow panelists in saying how truly proud
I am to be an American on this day and of our President and
this Congress as we meet the challenges ahead of us as a nation
and a people.
I appear before you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, as
the nominee of the President to be the Federal Co-Chairman of
the Delta Regional Authority, a newly created Agency which is
charged with jump starting the economy of the Mississippi Delta
region. There are some eight States involved in our region. I
have spent almost three decades in that region participating in
business activities, practicing law, as a part of State
government and as a part of the USDA Farm and Home
Administration.
I know the region very well. I know its people and I know
its challenges. This indeed will be the challenge of a
lifetime. Too, it is the opportunity of a lifetime to impact
the lives of so many for so many generations to come. I welcome
that opportunity. I believe that I am up to the occasion and I
hope, should the committee see fit to recommend me and should
the Senate confirm me, that I will live up to the expectations
of those who have encouraged my nomination and that of the
President.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
General Strock?
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL CARL A. STROCK, NOMINATED TO BE
A MEMBER OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION
General Strock. Mr. Chairman, I too am deeply honored to
appear before the committee this morning. As a soldier,
engineer and lifelong public servant, I am truly excited about
this opportunity to serve the nation in this capacity.
I have also prepared a written statement that lays out my
understanding of the Mississippi River Commission and its
mission, the significance of the Commission to the people of
the Valley and the nation and also my role in that Commission.
It also lays out my qualifications. With your permission, I
will submit that for the record and confine my remarks to my
qualifications.
Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my appreciation on behalf of the Army and the other
Services for the support that this Congress has given to the
nation's armed forces. In this time, as we react and respond to
this attack on our nation, we are truly going to need your
assistance. The assistance is not only the legislative
assistance you have offered, but the moral support you have
demonstrated through your personal presence at the site of the
Pentagon incident as well as in New York City.
I can tell you firsthand that the responders out there
deeply appreciate your being there and they know the
significance of your presence. Thank you very much for that,
sir.
As for my qualifications, in terms of education,
professional qualifications, experience and commitment to
public service, I have everything necessary for this important
position. I have Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Civil
Engineering; I am a registered professional engineer and a
member of numerous engineering societies.
It is my experience in the Army and the Corps of Engineers
that has prepared me for this position. I have been in the Army
for 30 years and during that time I have had extensive
experience in combat engineer units but I have also had the
opportunity to serve on three different occasions for the Army
Corps of Engineers in its domestic support. These assignments
include from 1980-83 in the Mobile District where I was the
Project Engineer on the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway and
projects associated with that project in Mississippi and
Alabama.
It is my service as a senior officer in the Corps of
Engineers that has benefited me most and I think will benefit
the Commission. In the last 4 years, I have served as Division
Commander both in the Pacific Ocean Division with
responsibilities for the Far East and the States of Hawaii and
Alaska as well as the Northwestern Division in Portland, Oregon
with responsibility for engineer support in 14 States from the
Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean.
In that capacity, I have developed relationships with
leaders and agencies at the local, State and national level,
nongovernmental organizations and many private citizens. I have
a very deep knowledge of the authorities and legislative
processes that guide our work and I believe these relationships
and knowledge will enable me to really contribute in a balanced
way to resolving the complex problems of the people, the nation
and the region.
It is my experience in the Northwestern Division where I
had responsibility for operation and maintenance of the
Missouri River Project that will best help here. The Missouri
River contributes at times up to 70 percent of the water in the
Mississippi River between St. Louis and Cairo, so the
interaction between the two rivers is very important.
If confirmed for this position, I look forward to playing a
key role in enhancing the economic vitality and the
environmental quality of this great river and its tributaries.
Thank you and I am prepared to answer any questions you may
have.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much. I want to thank all
of you for your fine statements and to commend you all. This
past week has been a very memorable and very disturbing week. I
was never more proud of the United States than I was working
with the Army Corps and all of the people involved from the
other emergency agencies in making sure we faced our
difficulties as best we could. I'm proud to say we have come a
long way in this past week. I want to thank you all and all of
your men for exemplary service.
Mr. Diaz, the nuclear regulatory area is of great concern
to all of us as to the security and safety of our lives. In
Vermont, we have our own nuclear plant which I was involved
with when it started up and I know a number of people have
raised deep concerns about the safety and what would happen and
how are we as far as being able to protect those plants. I
would appreciate any comments you might have.
Mr. Diaz. I think the Commission has always been concerned
about the security in the plants. This is not a new issue for
us. It is an issue we have been dealing with for many years and
I'm sure we are going to be dealing with it in the years to
come. I believe that we have in the past, when I was in the
Commission, upgraded the security of local power plants to make
it more and more difficult for any terrorist or intruder to
cause damage. That doesn't mean the systems are perfect, and I
believe the present circumstances would require the Commission
to take a completely new look at what these security
requirements are and how can we work better with our licensees
and with our government and the designated agencies to ensure
that the plants are at the appropriate level.
I do believe we have plans in place that actually address
this. I know in the last week all nuclear power plants in the
country have been put on maximum alert. We have a series of
plans to deal with emergencies and incident response
coordination for emergencies that I believe provide a very good
backbone for what we need to do. I'm sure those things will be
improved and I can assure you if I am confirmed, I will make
this issue one of my top priorities.
Senator Jeffords. I would like comments from all of you on
any concerns you have after this past week as to observations
of available manpower, training and whatever else. Do you have
anything of note that you would like to report to this
committee?
General Arnold. As you know, the Corps of Engineers
operates many very important facilities across the nation. We
have quite a few inside the Mississippi Valley that are
critical to us. After the events of the past week, we have done
security reviews of those to make sure they are safe. Some were
very difficult for us. You can't just block them off from the
public because as a lock and dam, it may have a Federal highway
that runs across the top of it or a State highway. We believe
we have taken prudent security measures without denying those
facilities the access the public needs as we pass through them.
We will continue to analyze the facilities in the Valley
that we are charged to maintain and preserve to make sure we
are doing the right things so that the benefits derived from
those facilities will not be denied to the nation.
General Strock. In a similar fashion, at this very moment,
we are convening a forum of construction and engineering
industry to talk about the implications of this disaster, not
only on our military and civil works missions but on our
construction and engineering profession throughout the United
States. We are trying to assess where we go from here.
On the military side, every one of our installations has
done a very detailed threat assessment and vulnerability
analysis and we're putting into place actions and structures
that will protect us better in the future. We will certainly be
providing the details of the requirements. This will come as a
resource requirement for the military forces and we will be
providing that to Congress very shortly.
Senator Jeffords. For Generals Arnold and Strock, the
Mississippi River Commission has been around a long time. Much
has changed in that time including our focus on balancing
navigation and flood control needs with environmental
protection and restoration. How does the Commission strike that
delicate balance?
General Arnold. As I mentioned earlier, one of the ways we
try to do that is constantly seeking public input and very open
discussion and discourse with various stakeholders. As we look
at challenges along the river, we need to develop ways, as you
try to optimize environmental effects or navigation effects,
that you don't do damage to one of the other aspects of the
river. There are many people in the Valley and across the
nation at large who have expertise and knowledge about the
different aspects for environmental restoration, navigation
and/or flood protection. The Commission facilitates the
discussion in bringing that expertise to the table in the
process of the public meetings. We do those semiannually in a
very, very open process right in the river itself, which is a
great natural workshop. That is what the Commission brings to
the table, setting the forum for public discourse where we can
get competing interests talking, take advantage of their
expertise and then develop the win-win solutions to the
problems we face.
General Strock. The Mississippi River Commission when it
was founded in 1879 was really focused on development of the
Mississippi River as a transportation corridor. Since that time
our mission has evolved. The Commission has been called upon to
readjust priorities. With the great floods in the early part of
the 20th century, the Commission was called upon to institute
flood control. We did that very successfully.
Currently, as I see it, the nation is calling on us to have
more involvement in environmental quality and to integrate that
more into how we operate this river. It's an evolutionary
process and I feel very comfortable with how it's working. As
an example, on a recent inspection tour of the river, we hosted
all the EPA regional directors who have any responsibility in
the area aboard the Motor Vessel Mississippi to discuss how we
will work with the Environmental Protection Agency as we put
our engineering works into the river. I am very confident we
are addressing the evolving needs of the nation in the
Mississippi Valley in a very effective way.
Senator Jeffords. Now I am going to ask you all the
obligatory questions. First, are you willing at the request of
any duly constituted committee of the Congress to appear in
front of it as a witness?
General Arnold. Yes.
Mr. Diaz. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
General Strock. Yes.
Senator Jeffords. Do you know of any matters which you may
or may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed in your position?
General Arnold. No.
Mr. Diaz. No.
Mr. Johnson. No.
General Strock. No.
Senator Jeffords. We have another panel, but thank you very
much.
[Recess.]
Senator Jeffords. The committee will come to order.
I want to welcome you all before the committee. I believe
you were probably here through the first part of our hearing,
so you understand what we will be doing.
First of all, I want to welcome you before the committee.
The positions to which you desire to ascend are very important
ones and thus we take our job very seriously to make sure that
you have an opportunity to let us know how well you can
perform. We want to help make sure you understand we are
available to try and help you in any way we can.
Again, if you have members of your family here whose
presence you would like to announce, please do.
Mr. Manson?
Mr. Manson. Mr. Chairman, my wife Penny is back in
Sacramento today and was unable to be here. She is with our dog
and our two cats.
Ms. Horinko. Mr. Chairman, I am especially proud to
introduce my husband, Tim Horinko; my two children, Catlin and
Hunter; my parents, John and Joanna Mascini; and my in-laws,
Larry and Terry Horinko. I further have many friends and
colleagues here I would also like to recognize and thank for
their support.
Senator Jeffords. Fine.
Mr. Parker?
Mr. Parker. Mr. Chairman, I have my wife, Rosemary, of 31
years here.
Senator Jeffords. Pleased to meet you.
Ms. Peters?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, due to recent events, I did not
ask my family to travel here from Arizona for today's hearing
as important as that hearing is. Please know, while they are
not here with me in person, they certainly are in my heart and
I am very blessed to have their love and support as I am
considered for this position.
Senator Jeffords. I am sure of that.
I want to welcome you all. It is a pleasure to have you
with us. We want to allow you to make your statements and we
will then ask a few questions. We will proceed as before. Mr.
Manson?
STATEMENT OF HAROLD CRAIG MANSON, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Manson. Mr. Chairman, I am honored and humbled to
appear before you as the President's nominee to be Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. I am
deeply grateful for the confidence shown in me by the President
and Secretary Norton. I also want to say a word of thanks to
Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Venneman, who is a colleague from
Sacramento and who has supported and encouraged me in this
process.
I appreciate that the committee has taken the time to hold
this hearing in this time of great national crisis. You may
know that the Department of Interior's personnel, including the
U.S. Park Police and law enforcement elements of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service have played roles in responding to the
current crisis.
Most regrettably a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee,
Richard Guadagno, lost his life in the crash of the jet in
Pennsylvania. Mr. Guadagno was a native of New Jersey, a refuge
manager of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge in my home
State of California. He was highly regarded by all who knew him
and he embodied the very best attributes of the talented people
in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service. I ask that everyone's prayers be with his family as
they are with the families of all who have been affected by
this great tragedy.
Senator Jeffords. We will take a moment to provide everyone
an opportunity to have some thoughts. Let me express my special
thanks from Members of Congress and all of us who know that if
not for the heroic efforts to bring that plane down, we might
all have been affected more dramatically.
Mr. Manson. I want to tell you that as a proud American, I
am a descendant of Africans, Europeans and Native Americans. I
was born in Missouri and have resided in the western part of
the United States for most of my life.
I received my undergraduate education at the United States
Air Force Academy and following graduation there, I served 2
years as a Minuteman Missile launch officer. The Air Force then
sent me to law school at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. After that, I served in
various Air Force Judge Advocate positions in the United States
and overseas, including a tour in the Department of Law at the
United States Air Force Academy. During that tour, I was
assigned with other faculty members to report to the Secretary
of the Air Force concerning the state of Air Force compliance
with environmental laws on its overseas bases.
After I left active duty in 1989, I practiced with a major
Sacramento law firm and then I was appointed by California
Governor Pete Wilson to the then newly created position of
General Counsel of the California Department of Fish and Game.
I held that position for 5 years after which the Governor
appointed me to be a judge. I've served on the Superior Court
in Sacramento since 1998. I have also been a faculty member of
the McGeorge School of Law since 1992 and I have continued my
military service in the Air National Guard and I hold the
current rank of Colonel.
Apart from the unmitigated enthusiasm I have for what I
think is the best job in Washington, I offer my experience in
natural resources law and policy, an ability to build consensus
across diverse interest groups and a judicial approach to
decisionmaking. During my tenure with California's Department
of Fish and Game, we conserved hundreds of thousands of acres
of wildlife habitat in an innovative multispecies planning
program in southern California's Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat.
That Habitat is the home to hundreds of potentially at risk
plant and animal species. It stretches across the five counties
in California where growth and development pressures are the
most intense.
Our natural community's conservation program had bipartisan
support as well as the support of landowners, resource users,
local governments and environmental groups and also had the
assistance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
As to the largest plans under that program, the San Diego
Multiple Species Conservation Plan, the Los Angeles Times said
on March 19, 1997, ``A committee composed of local businesses,
including Bank of America and Greater San Diego Chamber of
Commerce, concluded the cost to the public is modest given the
benefits.''
In addition to the large scale programs during my tenure at
California Fish and Game, we pioneered habitat conservation
plans under our State Endangered Species Act. At one point
during the 1990's, we had more habitat conservation plans under
State law than existed in the entire rest of the country under
Federal law. These plans, based upon the scientific judgments
of our biologists, involved the cooperation of landowners and
again, hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat were conserved
while allowing economic activities to proceed.
I have spent most of my adult life in public service and
during that time I've had no prouder moment than when Governor
Pete Wilson in 1997 signed amendments to the California
Endangered Species Act. I had been entrusted with the Wilson
Administration's negotiating portfolio on that and we worked
for 4 years to build a consensus among environmental groups,
landowners, local governments and agricultural interests. We
listened to everybody and eventually our legislation conceived
by a Republican administration was introduced by three
Democratic State legislators and won bipartisan support.
I mention my experiences in California to illustrate my
commitment to work through environmental and natural resource
public policy issues on a consensus basis wherever possible. In
that regard, I am completely committed to what Secretary Norton
describes as the four Cs, communication, consultation and
cooperation, all in the service of conservation. I strongly
support Secretary Norton's philosophy that the Federal
Government must be a partner with State and local governments,
individuals and non-governmental organizations.
If I am confirmed, I will apply my judicial experience to
the issues involving natural resources and natural parks. Every
interested party will get a fair hearing--environmental groups,
landowners, farmers, ranchers, sportsmen, State and local
government. Second, any decisions or recommendations I give to
the Secretary will be based on the weight of the evidence.
One of the aspects I most look forward to if I am confirmed
is the opportunity to work with the talented and dedicated
employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service. I have great respect for these
professionals who ensure the preservation of our treasures
every day.
Mr. Chairman, I love our great country and the physical
resources with which we have been blessed. If I am confirmed, I
will do my best to ensure these resources remain a perpetual
resource of enjoyment for the American people.
Thank you and I will be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Manson. I will leave the
questions until last.
Ms. Horinko, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARIANNE LAMONT HORINKO, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Horinko. Thank you for the privilege of coming before
you and the distinguished members of the committee today. I am
honored that President Bush nominated me to be Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I believe
that all the public and private sector positions that I have
been fortunate enough to hold in the past have set the stage
for this opportunity to serve our country. If confirmed, you
have my word that I will bring thoughtful deliberation,
integrity and enthusiasm to the challenges that loom ahead.
I am particularly attracted to this opportunity to serve
EPA because thanks to my father, I probably have some
groundwater running in my veins. My dad is a geologist who
worked for many years as a university professor and a career
civil servant at the National Science Foundation. He taught me
to love science and by example showed me that public service
was not merely a job but a higher calling. My mother provided
strong support and reinforcement of our love of science and
curiosity about our natural environment. Their great respect
for the natural treasures of our lands impressed me deeply and
it is because of their early influence that I chose the
protection of the environment as my calling.
In my statement today, I would like to share some of the
key themes and approaches I would bring to this position if
confirmed. They include innovation, information sharing and
partnership. One of my principal observations is that there has
been a sea change in Federal attitudes and approaches to
managing waste. The old command and control method has been
supplemented in some measure by partnerships and consensus
building as the means of cooperative problemsolving.
An example of that innovation is the emerging linkage
between environmental cleanup and community revitalization. The
brownfields story is all about a new way of doing the
government's business. Like Governor Whitman and President
Bush, I wholeheartedly support passage of brownfields
legislation during this session of Congress. With a strong
brownfields bill and working in tandem with our State and local
brownfields efforts, there is no limit to what we can
accomplish.
Significant challenges face the EPA work force. Much as
been made about the baby boomer retirement outflow and the need
for a newly energized and well equipped work force to address
the challenges of the future.
I think there is also great opportunity on the information
side of the equation. More emphasis needs to be placed on
ensuring that all stakeholders have access to clear and
understandable information about the health and environmental
risks they face. Policymaking cannot and should not exist in a
vacuum. I believe the people who create Federal regulations
should be required to meet face to face with the citizens whose
lives they affect. What better way to experience firsthand how
the policies we make here in Washington can affect the comfort
and quality of life in our towns and cities across the United
States.
If confirmed, I plan to work closely with our State and
tribal partners to ensure that all cleanups are both protective
of human health and the environment as well as implemented with
an eye toward community revitalization.
Finally, given the tragic events of September 11, I feel I
must take a moment to talk about a key role for the Office for
Assistant Administrator as EPA's lead on counter terrorism. I
spent virtually all of that fateful day with Governor Whitman
and the outstanding staff at the Emergency Operations Center on
Pennsylvania Avenue. Amid an ocean of chaos, we observed with
wonder and awe an island of calm, steady professionals who make
up EPA's emergency response team. These individuals are not
only technically and substantively competent but have pulled
together an organized approach to dealing with the horror of
chemical, biological or nuclear attacks on our citizens. When
terror struck on Tuesday, they sprung into action and made
certain that the public health and safety of our people were
protected and ensured. They are truly the unsung heroes of our
Agency. If confirmed, I pledge to give our counter terrorism
activities the highest priority and to do all that I can to
make their jobs easier.
I realize that I've not even scraped the surface of all the
issues and challenges that await me but I can assure this
committee that if confirmed, I will tackle each one with
enthusiasm and equanimity. I will work hard to meet these
challenges in a fair, balanced, open and honorable fashion. I
look forward to working closely with the Congress and
especially the members of this committee on the stewardship of
our environment.
Thank you for considering me for this position.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for an excellent statement.
Mike, I guess you came to the House the hear I left.
Mr. Parker. I took over when you left.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Pleased to have you with us. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF PAUL MICHAEL PARKER, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Parker. It is a great honor and privilege to appear
before this committee as the nominee to be the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am very grateful to
the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
the Army for the trust and confidence they have placed in me.
If confirmed, I pledge that I will work as hard as I
possibly can to serve the soldiers, civilians and families that
make the United States Army, the most powerful and professional
army in the world.
I especially want to also publicly thank Senator Cochran
for his kind words in introducing me earlier.
Senator Jeffords. I know Senator Lott was hoping to be here
but he asked me to express his regrets. He was unable to be
here.
Mr. Parker. Thank you.
The Corps of Engineers has a proud history stretching back
to the beginning of the country. Over the years, the Corps has
evolved to emphasize its major civil works responsibilities of
today, conservation and development of the nation's water
resources which include flood control, navigation, shore
protection and environmental restoration. All of these tasks
are important. All are complex and demanding and all require
significant resources. With competing demands for limited
dollars, fulfilling these requirements becomes more and more
challenging. However, I am committed that should I be
confirmed, environmental considerations will remain a key
factor in determining our civil works stance for the nation.
The dedicated and able staff of military and civilian
employees who make up the Corps of Engineers has risen to every
challenge in the past and I am sure will continue to carry out
their responsibilities to the people of this country in these
vital areas.
In the last week, you can see the value of the Corps to
this nation and the dedication of its people as we recover from
the recent tragedies at the World Trade Center and at the
Pentagon. The Corps is heavily involved in determining
structural integrity and debris management in both locations
and continues to serve as the nation's premiere engineers
during this time of crisis. Should I be confirmed, I will be
proud to work alongside these ultimate professionals.
In the 10-years during which I had the honor of
representing the Fourth District of Mississippi in the U.S.
House of Representatives, I applied my commitment to finding
practical, realistic solutions to problems and issues of
importance to my constituents. Having served on various House
committees which deal with a range of issues I can expect to
face as Assistant Secretary, I understand both the civil works
and the military program aspects of the Corps of Engineers and
appreciate the challenges facing the Corps. Should I be
confirmed, I look forward to serving with the Army and the
Corps during this landmark era of change and transformation. I
look forward to serving with the Army team of active, reserve
and National Guard soldiers who distinguish themselves every
day by their dedication and hard work. I am prepared to
undertake the important responsibilities of this post and am
enthusiastic about the opportunities it presents to me to
continue to serve this great country.
I am committed to working closely with and consulting with
the various stakeholders in the ongoing Corps projects,
including the Members of Congress who represent the American
people. If confirmed, I look forward to a strong working
relationship with you and this committee.
I would be pleased to answer any questions at the
appropriate time.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Parker.
Ms. Peters, Senator McCain wanted to be here and he has
given me glowing remarks on your capacity, so that will be made
a part of the record, but he was disappointed he could not be
here. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARY E. PETERS, NOMINATED TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper and members of the
committee, I do very much appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today as you consider my nomination for
Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. I do
recognize the many competing demands on your time at this time
in our country and I appreciate that you have carved out this
time today.
I too am honored to have been nominated by President Bush
and with the concurrence of Secretary Mineta, who I think has
demonstrated in this past week his tremendous capacity as
Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
Should you choose to confirm me, I look forward to working
with this committee, with each of you, with your very capable
staffs and many other stakeholders to administer the Federal
Highway Program.
Transportation affects everyone in our country. Each one,
every man, every woman, every child has the right to expect a
safe, accessible, affordable and reliable transportation
system. Transportation that is responsive to the citizens and
the businesses we serve is vitally important to our nation's
economic health, quality of life and the safety and security of
every American. The tragedy of September 11 graphically
demonstrated this very important point.
There are a number of factors to be considered in ensuring
that transportation meets these requirements. To respond to
these factors, if I am confirmed, I would immediately focus on
several priority areas. Among these are highway safety and
security, environmental stewardship and streamlining processes,
the stewardship of public funds to ensure that every dollar
that is entrusted to the Federal Highway Administration is used
appropriately in the diligent performance of our duties,
relieving congestion and bottlenecks, and finally, the very
important reauthorization of the Transportation Act.
I have spent more than 15 years in the transportation
field. I have had the opportunity to be involved in a number of
local, regional and national transportation issues as State
Director of Transportation in Arizona. In that capacity, I had
responsibility for highway, transit, rail and aviation
transportation functions as well as motor carrier programs,
driver licensing, vehicle registration, tax collection and tax
distribution.
This experience afforded me the opportunity to recognize
the importance of dealing systemically and inclusively with
these issues, remaining mindful of the integration of the
various modal functions in arriving at solutions that meet
transportation demand. I bring this experience to the position
for which I have been nominated, as well as knowledge of the
technical aspects of planning, building, operating and
maintaining transportation systems, the use of technology in
arriving at solutions, and a background in the finance and
economics of those systems.
Recognizing the many demands on your time, I will make my
statement very short today. I have submitted for the record a
longer statement and again, I sincerely appreciate the
opportunity you have given me to appear before you today and
would be pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Senator Jeffords. All of you, your entire statements will
be made a part of the record.
I have just a question or two to ask of each of you and
then we also have obligatory questions we have to ask before we
can go on to confirmation.
Mr. Manson, with the possible exception of phosphorous
pollution, nonendemic nuisance species are the biggest problem
facing Lake Champlain in Vermont. Sea lampreys have decimated
the fishery there. Milfoil and water chestnuts have made much
of the Lake inaccessible and zebra mussels are beginning to
flourish. The USFWS' Lake Champlain office is working to
address these problems but needs more resources. What do you
see as the role of USFWS in working on nuisance species issues?
Mr. Manson. I'm not familiar with the specific Lake
Champlain issues but I am aware from my prior experience that
invasive mutant species issues exist throughout the country in
various ecosystems and the Fish and Wildlife Service has a very
important role to play in that arena. If I am confirmed, I will
certainly a close look at the allocation of resources to deal
with those types of problems across the board.
Senator Jeffords. That is one of the advantages. As
chairman, I get to get a little of my own personal problems
involved here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. How do you feel about this role for USFWS
being formally authorized during the upcoming reauthorization
of the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act?
Mr. Manson. Again, I am not familiar with that particular
piece of legislation but I will look into that and I would
certainly be happy to provide you an answer for the record
about that issue.
Senator Jeffords. I just want to raise your awareness of it
and hopefully you will remember that.
Ms. Horinko, I understand that at least 50 percent of the
Superfund sites in New England are slowed down by the lack of
either total or partial funding. How much funding should
Congress appropriate annually to meet the timely cleanup needs
of the Superfund Program, the whole program?
Ms. Horinko. You are touching upon one of the most
important issues the Agency is facing as the Superfund Program
matures. If I am confirmed, I will be taking a hard look at the
Superfund budget and engaging in a dialog with you and your
colleagues on the future of the program and how should we
prioritize these sites so that they get cleaned up as quickly
as we possible can, especially including sites in the New
England region.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Parker, you are sitting on a panel
today with many of the people you will be working with in order
to carry out the commitment you made in your statement that
environmental considerations will remain a key factor in
determining our civil works stance. Will that commitment
involve consulting with your counterparts at the Department of
Interior on endangered species and the Department of
Transportation on highway projects impact on our waterways and
wetlands, and the Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. Parker. Yes, it will. As a matter of fact, before the
hearing started, Mr. Manson and I were talking about getting
together if we are both confirmed. We have to sit down and talk
because one of the problems that we have had--and everyone is
guilty of this to some degree--are these turf battles where
they sit around and worry about their own turf so much
sometimes they forget to consult or they consult in a very
shallow way with other agencies. They worry so much about turf
that they don't really solve the problem.
Especially in this time of national distress of being under
attack as we have been and are, I think it becomes even more
imperative that all agencies, especially the Corps, not create
a situation for themselves where they just sit back and say
this is our turf, we're the only ones that can control it and
we're going to make the decisions. They have to truly reach
out, truly have others involved and everybody have a part in
the solutions that we have to find.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Peters, we need to balance the
surface transportation system in this country with highways,
transit and rail, all providing service. ISTEA and T20 through
their flexibility problems have allowed States to begin to
create this balance. Do you support these flexibility
provisions and will you work to retain and strengthen the
flexibility in the upcoming reauthorization process?
Ms. Peters. I have discussed this very issue with Secretary
Mineta and other members of the Department of Transportation,
including my colleagues who are administrators of transit, rail
and other modes. We do intend very much to work together to
preserve and enhance the flexibility provisions of the law so
the communities can use the best tools available to them to
respond to transportation issues and not be driven by money or
silos.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Carper, do you have any comments
or questions you want to ask?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. To our witnesses, our nominees, welcome. We
are delighted you are here and congratulations on your
nominations.
I am especially pleased to welcome Mike Parker, a colleague
with whom I was privileged to serve for two terms in the House.
I may be the only person on this panel who was fortunate to
have been on his data base as a Congressman, as a Democrat, as
a Republican.
Mr. Parker. You contributed when I was a Democrat.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I understand our witnesses were given the
opportunity to introduce their families earlier when they were
seated. I missed that portion. There are a couple of kids here,
a little boy I can see back there and whose child is that? Ms.
Horinko? Would you reintroduce your family for us?
Ms. Horinko. Thank you, Senator Carper. I am delighted to.
There is my husband, Tim Horinko and my two children, Hunter
and Caitlin.
Senator Carper. How old are they?
Ms. Horinko. Hunter is two and Caitlin is four.
Senator Carper. They are good kids.
Ms. Horinko. Yes, they are. Thank you.
Senator Carper. I don't know that I would be as brave as
you. When my boys were two and four I don't now that I would
have brought them in here.
Thank you for being here and for your willingness to share
your wife and your mother with the rest of our country.
Congressman Parker, do you have anyone from your family
here?
Mr. Parker. My wife, Rosemary.
Senator Carper. Thanks for sharing Mike with us for a long
time.
I have a couple of questions. Ms. Peters, you look
familiar. I was Governor of Delaware for the last 8 years and a
woman named Ann Canby was our Secretary of Transportation. Do
you know her at all?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Carper, I know her very well.
Senator Carper. I have a question for you if I could and it
relates to the use of congestion mitigation money. States get
money for a variety of things in transportation and one of the
things we get money for is for congestion mitigation. We can
use that money to build roads, intersections, for improving the
throughput of traffic and integrated traffic management
systems. In our State we use some of the money for bicycle
paths or you can use it for freight railroads.
We don't have discretion in our State governments to use
the money for passenger rail. In our judgment that seems to
make sense to mitigate traffic congestion. Do you have any
thoughts at all about whether States should have that kind of
flexibility?
Ms. Peters. I do believe that the States should have the
maximum flexibility available to them to use funds so they can
meet their transportation demand in the manner which best
serves the citizens of their State.
The whole issue of passenger rail funding and the source of
that funding, as you are well aware, has been a source of a lot
of discussion recently. How this money is collected, the user
fees, and how it is spent is something I would look forward to
discussing with you further as we go forward. I have had the
opportunity to discuss that briefly with the Deputy Secretary
and it is something he is interested in, as I am.
Senator Carper. When Tommy Thompson, now Secretary Tommy
Thompson, was Governor of Wisconsin and chairman of the Amtrak
Board, he put forth a proposal to earmark half a penny of the
gasoline tax to be used to provide the only supplemental
appropriation for Amtrak. Any thoughts about that idea? I'm not
trying to put you on the spot. Whether you support or not, I'm
to support your nomination but I'm interested in your
perspective.
Ms. Peters. I do think passenger rail has to be a very
important part of the solution to meet transportation demand. I
was involved in several of the policy discussions with regard
to allocation of funds to Amtrak. The objection appeared to be
the user fee basis of doing that.
As I indicated earlier, I think we need the maximum
flexibility we can have to spend on transportation. Demand
needs to be met whether it's met with a highway, with passenger
rail, with telecommuting or with other programs that disperse
the amount of demand we have. I think are all important
considerations.
I would look forward to working with you and with the
Secretary to determine if that allocation of money would be
appropriate.
Senator Carper. I've just come from a caucus meeting where
the legislation is being reviewed with the members of our
caucus on the potential cost of assistance for the airline
industry in the wake of last week's tragedy. The amount of
money we will probably be asked to invest as a country in the
airline industry to help them in their time of need is going to
be enormous. When we compare the amount of money we put into
passenger rail for the whole life of Amtrak, I think will put
that whole issue in a different context going forward.
Senator Jeffords. I agree with you on that. I believe very
strongly as you do that the rail alternative, especially for
transit from DC to New York and places like that makes so much
more sense than the airways.
Senator Carper. One more question, maybe two. Ms. Horinko,
what part of EPA has jurisdiction or owns the issue of
recycling solid waste?
Ms. Horinko. That is my part of the Agency.
Senator Carper. This is kind of a broad question and you
can take it where you want. Talk to us a bit about your
interest in recycling solid waste? Where do you and your family
live, what State?
Ms. Horinko. We are in Virginia, Centerville, Virginia,
right in the D.C. area.
Senator Carper. How do families recycle in your community?
Ms. Horinko. In Fairfax County where we live, we have
curbside recycling, we source separate and one day a week along
with the regular trash, the aluminum, glass and newspaper are
picked up.
Senator Carper. Do you want to share some thoughts with us
as a citizen on your take on recycling, what you all do as a
family and maybe use that to talk about what we should be doing
as a country?
Ms. Horinko. What I told Governor Whitman when I
interviewed with her to take this job was that if you walk into
a video arcade that has older video games in Ocean City,
Maryland or in Bethany Beach----
Senator Carper. Have you been to Bethany Beach?
Ms. Horinko. I am a local to the Washington area and grew
up as a child going to Bethany Beach.
Senator Carper. We love Bethany Beach, Bethany Beach,
Delaware, just north of Fenwick Island and south of Rehoboth.
Ms. Horinko. It is a lovely, idyllic beach town and a
wonderful place to go to the beach.
If you put your two quarters into a video game that is more
than 7 or 8 years old, up pops the EPA logo and it says
``Reduce, reuse, recycle, William K. Riley, Administrator.'' So
I told Governor Whitman, at a minimum, we would get that
changed to ``Christine Todd Whitman'' but while I have Sony and
Sega on the phone, perhaps we could talk to them about
extending that to playstations, game boys and maybe they would
be interested in a cooperative agreement on electronics waste
recycling while we are working on that. Maybe there are things
we can do to get folks engaged at the schools in recycling.
I think recycling is an important issue, not necessarily in
terms of the risk reduction or environmental protection but
that it engages consumers at the hands-on level in
environmental issues. Once they start thinking about if they
are recycling and source reducing, they take the next step and
start thinking about what kind of car am I driving, where am I
choosing to live and what is the air quality in my area.
Recycling is like a gateway issue that engages people at the
retail level in environmental protection.
If I am confirmed, you will have my commitment that we will
do a number of interesting and fun things to promote recycling
and get people thinking about the broader issues as well.
Senator Carper. I have had the opportunity to talk with
Congressman Parker a time or two in the last couple of weeks
about an issue near and dear to our hearts in Delaware. There
is a canal that was built that cuts the State of Delaware
literally in half called the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
which connects the Delaware Bay to the Chesapeake Bay and
provides a short cut for ships trying to get from the Atlantic
Ocean to Baltimore.
Our State is not very big, a lot smaller than Vermont but
this canal cuts our State in half. It uses a big swath of our
land and disrupts commerce because we have to figure out how to
get over this canal.
The Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Government took
over the canal back in the early part of the twentieth century
and has owned and operated it for a number of years. Under
Federal law, the Corps has responsibility from time to time to
provide adequate crossings over this canal.
For us in Delaware, we'd like to line up and fill the canal
in, line up citizens on either side, fill in the canal, give us
an appropriation for shovels and we will fill it in and that
way ships won't have a short cut to get to Baltimore, they can
use the Port of Wilmington. Moreover, we wouldn't have our
commerce disrupted and our way of life disrupted as it has been
for over 100 years.
The Corps built a new bridge and as you come off 95 to head
south you cross that bridge about 10 miles south of I-95. There
is a bridge not far away in a little town called St. Georges
where the Corps continues to own, maintain and operate the
older bridge which is over 50 years old but has refused to take
over ownership and operation of the new bridge about 3 or 4
years old.
One concern I expressed to Congressman Parker is to resolve
the ownership issue around that bridge as well as the old
bridge. Initially, I think the Corps wanted to tear down the
old bridge. As it turns out, traffic is increasing so quickly,
we will need that capacity from the old bridge as well as the
new one and about 10 years we can have another fight to build
another bridge or we can leave the one that is there and keep
it in some kind of usable capacity so when we need it, it will
be there.
I would ask Congressman Parker to share a thought or two on
this with us today.
Mr. Parker. You and I have discussed this. I don't know
everything about the issue as far as all the details and legal
ramifications, but at the same time, some general statements I
think would be good to share with you and the committee.
It is very important that the Corps not put burdens on
local municipalities or local States that should not be borne
by them. It is also important that the Corps of Engineers
follow through with obligations and promises they have made and
responsibilities they have taken. From that standpoint, I look
forward to working with you to resolve this.
I know this is a longstanding problem that you have had and
if confirmed, I look forward to working with you to resolve
that in an equitable way and something that will be good for
this country and also good for the citizens of Delaware because
the Corps did accept some responsibility that it should follow
through with. I can assure you I will work to that end.
Senator Carper. I appreciate those assurances and look
forward to working with you to resolve the issue of ownership
and to move forward.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Now it comes down to the obligatory
questions. Are you willing at the request of any duly
constituted committee of the Congress to appear in front of us
as a witness?
Mr. Manson. Yes, I am.
Ms. Horinko. Yes, I am.
Mr. Parker. Yes.
Ms. Peters. Yes, sir.
Senator Jeffords. Do you know of any matters which you may
or may not have thus far disclosed which might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?
Mr. Manson. No, sir.
Ms. Horinko. No.
Mr. Parker. No.
Ms. Peters. No, sir.
Senator Jeffords. That ends the hearing. We assure you we
are going to take up your nominations in a timely process. We
know you are all anxious to get to work and we need you at
work, so we will be working very rapidly to get you cleared.
Thank you all. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona
Thank you, Chairman Jeffords, for permitting me to introduce Mary
Peters, who has been nominated to serve as the Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
I am very pleased the President has selected such an experienced
and capable individual to fill this important position within the
Department of Transportation. Mary is a fourth generation Arizonan and
I know that transferring her residency from Peoria to Washington D. C.,
must come with some trepidations. But while Arizona will miss her, the
rest of the Nation will certainly benefit from Mary's leadership and
willingness to take on this new challenge.
As you all know, the FHWA Administrator plays a critical role in
overseeing our nation's roads and highways, administering the Federal
grant programs. These programs provide billions of dollars in funding
to the States to construct and improve the National Highway System,
urban and rural roads, bridges, as well as funding for roads in to our
national parks, Indian reservations and other public lands. Critical to
carrying out the administrative responsibilities of these grant
programs is the stewardship of high-dollar transportation projects,
such as the Big Dig and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This must be a top
priority for the FHWA Administration and I know Mary is well prepared
to carry out such a responsibility.
Mary Peters has first hand knowledge of the highway program having
served in the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for 16 years.
She started at ADOT in 1985 and was appointed Director in March 1998.
Mary has a long and accomplished record and has often received well
deserved recognition for her efforts. For example, she was named the
1994 Women's Transportation Seminar Woman of the Year as well as their
1998 Person of the Year, was profiled by the Arizona Business Journal
in 1996, recognized as one of the Top 100 Who's Who of Arizona Women in
Business, and as the Most Influential Person in Arizona in
Transportation.
One of Mary's big accomplishments has been her success in
accelerating Arizona's Regional Freeway System project by 7 years. It
was originally scheduled to be completed in 2014, but through her
leadership, it is now projected to be finished in 2007. Under her
direction, ADOT has been a successful leader in ``design-build''
projects, using innovative techniques such as contractual incentives to
complete road projects with minimal inconvenience to travelers.
ADOT also has received many awards under Mary's leadership for its
attention to the environment and visual impact of construction
projects. And of course Mary was very instrumental in getting the
Hoover Dam Bypass project underway with the cooperation of Nevada and
the Federal Government. Early on she recognized this project as
Arizona's No. 1 priority.
On a personal side, Mary is one of the kindest persons you'd ever
want to know. She is a great humanitarian and is genuinely interested
in the lives of all of her employees. I am told Mary not only knows
every ADOT employee by their names, but she also knows the names of
their spouses and children. She understands the importance of family
and friends and she shows it every day in her care and concern for
those around her.
And finally, I cannot resist mentioning an interesting tidbit about
Mary's past which is a very good indication that she is definitely the
right person for this job.
Before Mary became involved in the transportation field, she was in
the butchering business. She made her living by cutting pork. This
background should come in very handy for Mary in the months ahead and I
urge her to rely heavily on her past porkcutting expertise as she works
to carry out her responsibilities. Mary will undoubtedly face unlimited
requests to support and fund members pork projects but to the extent of
her authority, those projects would more appropriately deserve the same
treatment that she mastered as a butcher.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of
Arkansas
As the lead sponsor of S. 1622, the Delta Regional Authority Act, I
would like to thank Chairman Jeffords for scheduling this hearing on
the nomination of Pete Johnson to serve as Federal co-chair. Installing
a Federal co-chair is critical to prompt establishment of the Delta
Regional Authority, and I hope the committee will swiftly confirm Mr.
Johnson.
While I do not know Mr. Johnson personally, my research indicates
that his experience has prepared him well for this job. Working with
the Farmers Home Administration, Mr. Johnson became familiar with the
needs of the Delta region. And his accounting background gives me
confidence that he will ensure that the Delta Regional Authority
utilizes the Federal dollars that have been appropriated to it wisely.
I look forward to working with Mr. Johnson in the coming months as he
convenes Governors of the States in the Delta region to organize the
Authority.
As members of this committee may know, the lower Mississippi Delta
suffers from a greater measure of poverty and unemployment than any
other region of the country. Per capita income in distressed counties
of the Delta is only 53 percent of the U.S. average, and over half of
the 219 counties and parishes within the Delta Region have had poverty
rates above 20 percent for the past four decades. I proposed the Delta
Regional Authority to provide long-term coordination among Federal,
State and local entities committed to economic development in the Lower
Mississippi Delta region.
The creation of jobs, the expansion of existing businesses, and the
development of local economies are essential to achieving economic
growth in the region. In order to achieve this growth, resources such
as an adequate physical infrastructure, a skilled and trained
workforce, enhanced local leadership, and greater opportunities for
development and entrepreneurship are needed.
The Delta Regional Authority will:
<bullet> provide technical assistance to small localities that
have only part-time staff to negotiate the complicated application
process necessary for acquiring Federal funding for critically
important transportation, housing, infrastructure and economic
development projects;
<bullet> aid needy localities in meeting the matching fund
requirements of Federal programs that require such funds; and
<bullet> foster cooperation among State, localities, private
sector interests and charitable, non-profit groups to determine region-
wide solutions to regional problems.
I thank the chairman and I look forward to working with this
committee on reauthorization of the Delta Regional Authority next year.
__________
Statement of Brigadier General Edwin J. Arnold, Nominated to be a
Member and chairman of the Mississippi River Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am honored to appear
before you as the nominee for president and member of the Mississippi
River Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement about the
Mississippi River Commission, the Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) project, and my qualifications for the position for which I have
been nominated.
The Mississippi River Commission, established by Act of Congress on
June 28, 1879, consists of seven members, all of whom are appointed by
the President of the United States subject to confirmation by the
Senate. Three members are Corps of Engineers officers, one of whom
serves as president; one member is from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and three members are from the civilian
sector, two of whom must be civil engineers.
From its inception in 1879, the Commission has been charged with
the task of planning and implementing a program of flood damage
reduction projects and navigation improvements on the Mississippi
River. More recently, project purposes have been expanded to include
environmental restoration. This task continues to be conducted in
concert with the myriad of political institutions, individuals, and
public entities which have major interests in seeing that the water
resources needs and opportunities of the Mississippi Valley are
evaluated, planned, designed, constructed, and maintained.
As established in 1879, the Commissioners were to serve as advisers
in planning and implementing water resource projects and programs on
the Mississippi River between the Head of Passes below New Orleans to
its headwaters. Since 1928, the Commission has focused on the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of May 15, 1928, to be implemented under oversight of the
Commission. The MR&T project extends generally from the confluence of
the Ohio River to the Head of Passes below New Orleans and covers
portions of seven States. It receives water from all or portions of 31
States and part of two Canadian provinces, or roughly 41 percent of the
contiguous United States. Effective planning, design, construction, and
operation of the widespread and complex MR&T project have been assisted
greatly by the Commission's active consultation with the public,
particularly on its semiannual lower Mississippi River inspection
trips, and by the high degree of professionalism that has been
developed in its staff.
A major flood on the lower Mississippi River would have
catastrophic effects on the inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley and
the economy of the nation were it not for the protection provided by
the levees and other flood control works along the main stem of the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. Many have noted that the
comprehensive project on the lower river provided for passage of major
floods in 1973, 1983, 1997, and other years without the extensive
damage suffered in the upper river area during the 1993, 1995, and 2001
flood events.
In addition, the navigation features of the project help to
maintain the river for shipping import and export commodities between
inland ports and world markets.
Reorganization of the Corps of Engineers in April 1997 placed the
entire length of the Mississippi River within one Division of the Corps
of Engineers. I serve as Commander of this Mississippi Valley Division
of the Corps. Command of the Division office traditionally has also
included duties as President of the Mississippi River Commission. The
reorganization of the Corps now allows management of the Mississippi
River as a single and unified system and enables the President and
members of the Commission to more effectively serve as advisers to the
Chief of Engineers as authorized in the 1879 legislation.
The Commission members have been active as advisers to the Corps on
the Upper Mississippi River since the reorganization in 1997. The
Commission has conducted inspection trips on the Upper Mississippi
River in August 1997-2001, holding a series of public meetings in the
St. Paul, Rock Island, and St. Louis Districts each year, in addition
to the semiannual inspection trips and public meetings in the Memphis,
Vicksburg, and New Orleans Districts.
In regard to my personal qualifications, I am a graduate of the
University of Texas at Austin where I was commissioned in 1972 into the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I hold both a Bachelor of Science degree
in Geology and a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the
University of Texas at Austin. I am also a graduate of the U.S. Army
Command and General Staff College, School of Advanced Military Studies,
and the Army War College.
Since September 2000, I have served as Commander of the Mississippi
Valley Division and also as president designee of the Mississippi River
Commission. In this position, I have led and managed the Corps' water
resources program in the Mississippi River Valley. The boundary of the
Mississippi Valley Division extends from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico,
includes portions of 12 States, and encompasses 370,000 square miles.
The program and activities overseen by the Mississippi Valley Division
and Mississippi River Commission are conducted by district offices
located in St. Paul, Rock Island, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and
New Orleans.
I have served over 29 years in the uniformed military service as an
Army Engineer. I have commanded at all levels from platoon through
Division. I served as Resident Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division,
Europe, with duty in Athens, Greece. I was the Battle Lab Director and
Deputy Commandant at the U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, before I assumed command of the Southwestern Division of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Dallas, Texas, my last tour of duty
before being assigned to my current command of the Mississippi Valley
Division of the Corps of Engineers, with its headquarters located in
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
In my role as Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division, I have
responsibility for Federal involvement in the areas of flood
protection, navigation, and environmental preservation along the
Mississippi River. I directly supervise the programming and expenditure
of Federal resources through the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
budget within the Mississippi River Valley. My knowledge of the various
programs and my daily involvement with constituent groups throughout
the valley make me well qualified for the position of President and
member of the Mississippi River Commission.
If confirmed to the position, Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to
playing a key role in the continual improvement of the Mississippi
River system and the Mississippi River and Tributaries project by
applying the most modern practices in water resources engineering. I
would also look forward to being the President of a Commission that
focuses not only on the traditional roles of safely passing the
Mississippi River Basin floodwaters to the Gulf of Mexico, plus
providing a safe and dependable navigable waterway, but also
incorporates programs and projects for environmental protection and
restoration.
Mr. Chairman, for your information, I have attached my complete
biography. This completes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased
to respond to any questions.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
Statement of Nils J. Diaz, Nominated to be a Commissioner, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: It is a pleasure to appear
before you today. I am honored by President Bush's nomination and by
the Senate's consideration of my qualifications for a second term as
Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I also
appreciate that this complex and thorough process was started and
continues with bipartisan support.
You may be aware of my credentials from previous appearances before
you, so rather than take your time, I will briefly state that I am a
nuclear scientist and engineer by profession. Before coming to the NRC
in 1996, I was Professor of Nuclear Engineering Sciences at the
University of Florida, Director of the Innovative Nuclear Space Power
Institute (INSPI)--a national consortium of industries, universities
and national laboratories--and President and Principal Engineer of
Florida Nuclear Associates, Inc. My experience includes thirty-four
years designing, researching, teaching, training, evaluating and
managing the engineering, technology and economics of the peaceful uses
of atomic energy. I have been formally trained in and have practiced
nuclear medicine in both academic and clinical environments and have
also owned and operated a few small businesses.
To the above, I have added 5 years of regulatory experience,
participating in the exercise and direction of the Commission's
licensing and regulatory functions. The mission of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is to ensure adequate protection of the public
health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment
in the use of nuclear materials in the United States of America. This
mission is carried out by an exclusively regulatory mandate. If
confirmed, I pledge to continue to carry out this mandate and to work
for a consistently more effective and efficient regulatory framework.
There is no doubt that the people of the United States want and must
benefit from effective regulatory operations that assure safe nuclear
power, radiological and medical industry activities.
The issue of effective regulation touches every American in our
increasingly technological society. The effects of a safety-focused,
efficient NRC regulatory framework are applicable across the board, to
nuclear power reactors, to fuel manufacturing facilities, to nuclear
medicine and the radiological industry, to the safe handling,
transportation and storage of radioactive wastes, and to the NRC
itself.
During my first term as Commissioner, many of NRC's activities were
centered on the safe operation and license renewal of existing nuclear
power plants. The NRC established initiatives to increasingly focus the
prescriptive, deterministic regulatory regime on the most safety-
significant matters, employing a more risk-informed and performance-
based approach. By focusing on the most safety-significant matters,
through a risk-informed approach, the NRC has developed a more
effective licensing, inspection and enforcement process. Now, it
appears that the challenge of new power reactor applications could be
added to the Commission's deliberations. I am prepared to face both the
existing and the new challenges with the requisite accountability and
transparency.
The Commission is also responsible for assuring that the people of
the United States, and the Congress as their representatives, are fully
informed of how its responsibilities are discharged, and for
maintaining its decisionmaking process fully accessible to all
concerns. I have been, and will continue to be, especially attentive to
this responsibility.
I would be honored by the opportunity to help the Commission
address these issues in a manner consistent with the responsibilities
assigned by the Congress to the Agency. If confirmed, I will assume the
Office of Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fully
cognizant of these obligations and pledging to discharge them to the
best of my ability.
Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you. I am prepared to answer any
questions that the committee might have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Nils J. Diaz to Additional Questions from Senator Corzine
Question 1. The September 11th terrorist attacks have focused
attention on the potential vulnerability of U.S. critical
infrastructure. As a general matter, how do you assess the
vulnerability of U.S. commercial nuclear reactors to terrorist attacks?
Response. Nuclear power plants are designed, constructed, and
operated with many safety features for the protection of public health
and safety, such as robust containment buildings, redundant safety
systems, and highly trained operators. They are among the most hardened
industrial structures in the country and are designed to withstand
extreme events, such as hurricanes, tornados and earthquakes. All NRC
licensees with significant radiological materials have emergency
response plans to enable the mitigation of impacts on the public in the
event of a radioactivity release. These emergency plans include
provisions for the coordination of State, local and Federal actions to
enhance the protection of the public. However, the NRC requirements for
public protection do not specifically incorporate the consequences of
large aircraft impacts such as those used in the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Detailed engineering
analyses of a deliberate large airliner crash have not yet been
performed, but I understand the Commission intends to critically review
pertinent information, and I support this effort.
If confirmed, I intend to consider this issue as a priority for
review and deliberation.
Question 2. Recent reports have questioned the adequacy of the
NRC's Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations. What is your
assessment of the adequacy of the OSREs?
Response. The NRC has been considering improvements to its
safeguard programs for nuclear power plants. The Operational Safeguards
Response Evaluation (OSRE) program, which is performance-based, was
designed to improve security inspection efforts by using force-on-force
exercises conducted by licensees as a method of evaluating their
response capabilities. While licensees are responsible for identifying
vulnerabilities in their security programs, their tactical response
capability has been enhanced by NRC's OSRE program. This program has
been revised and improved over time as new information was learned, and
it has proven to be effective in evaluating licensee programs to meet
design basis threats. The OSRE program has identified a number of
weaknesses in licensee performance. Where weaknesses were identified,
NRC ensured that corrective actions were taken.
NRC security and safeguards oversight activities are not limited to
the OSREs. The NRC has and will continue to implement the baseline
safeguards inspection program conducted by NRC inspectors, which
includes reviews of areas such as access authorization, access control
measures, audit programs and responses to contingency events.
A reassessment of the adequacy of the OSREs and other elements of
NRC's safeguards requirements will be conducted, as discussed in
Question 3 below.
Question 3. In July, the NRC announced it was starting a 1-year
pilot program of the Safeguard Performance Assessments. It has been
reported that the SPA will be used to determine if the SPA has merit as
a possible replacement for the OSRE. Do you think that would be a good
idea?
Response. It is my understanding that a decision to replace the
OSRE with the Safeguards Performance Assessment (SPA) has not been
made. Earlier this year, the Commission recognized that improvements
could be made to its safeguards activities and, therefore, decided to
consider alternative potential improvements to the safeguards
evaluation process. One approach that is being pursued is the SPA pilot
program, which will be conducted in addition to the ongoing OSRE
program. For the year 2002, the Commission approved conducting six
OSREs and eight SPAs. At the conclusion of this program, a
comprehensive review of the results will be conducted. One aspect of
this effort will be an evaluation of the effectiveness of safeguards
requirements and the oversight process.
If confirmed, I intend to objectively evaluate the agency's
safeguards and security requirements and oversight programs, including
the results of the SPA pilot program, OSREs, and the lessons learned
from the terrorist attacks on America, and work with the Commission to
finalize a decision on our licensees' safeguards and security
requirements.
Question 4. One of the ideas currently under consideration in
Congress is Federalization of airport and airline security. Do you
think that Federalization of security at nuclear reactors is an idea
that Congress should consider? Are there any other security-related
ideas or additional authorizations that you believe that Congress
should consider?
Response. Federalization of security at nuclear reactors has been
previously considered as part of the agency's safeguards and security
programs. For example, in 1976 the NRC conducted a study, the Security
Agency Study, which was transmitted to Congress on August 19, 1976.
This study examined whether security forces should continue to be
employed by individual licensees with reliance on local law enforcement
personnel for emergency assistance or whether a Federal security force
should be created within the NRC to perform security functions. The
Security Agency Study concluded that the creation of a special security
force would not result in a higher degree of guard force effectiveness
than that which could be achieved through the use of private guards who
have been trained and properly certified. To this day, this conclusion
has been in effect.
Recently, the Commission made several legislative proposals to the
Congress to provide Federal authority in the safeguards and security
area. These recommendations would 1) authorize guards at NRC-licensed
facilities to carry and use weapons to protect property of significance
to the common defense and security located at facilities owned or
operated by a Commission licensee; 2) make it a Federal crime to
introduce dangerous weapons, explosives or other dangerous instruments
into facilities subject to NRC's licensing or certification authority;
and 3) make it a Federal crime to commit certain acts of sabotage
during the construction of a production, utilization, or waste storage
facility. I believe it would be appropriate for Congress to consider
these recommendations.
Furthermore, even before the September 11th attacks, I had urged
that we study how the term ``enemies of the state'' (10 CFR 50.13
``Attacks and Destructive Acts By Enemies of the United States; and
Defense Activities'') has been interpreted by the agency. I believe
that in light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is
appropriate for that interpretation to be reassessed, as well as other
ideas regarding Federalization of security.
If confirmed, I am ready to work with my fellow Commissioners and
the Congress to consider what is necessary for the common defense and
security as applicable to nuclear reactor safeguards.
______
Responses of Nils J. Diaz to Additional Questions from Senator Reid
Question 1. In your view, what is the role of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) with respect to site suitability, licence
application, waste acceptance and closure of a geologic repository?
Response. My understanding of the NRC's role for the issues cited
above is as follows:
a) Site Suitability: The NRC role is to provide preliminary
comments on the sufficiency of DOE's at-depth site characterization and
waste form proposal information which could be used to support the
License Application. NRC is required by statute to conduct prelicensing
actions, including interactions with Department of Energy (DOE) and
other stakeholders to provide the basis for any comments. NRC also is
required to comment on the required Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) which accompanies a Site Recommendation. The NRC's
initial comments on the DEIS have been provided to DOE and made public.
b) License Application: NRC has established procedures to receive
and review license applications for completeness. If an application is
submitted, the NRC must determine whether it is complete. If it is
complete, NRC would docket it and notify the public. NRC would then
conduct a thorough safety review of the application and publish its
results in a safety evaluation report. NRC would also determine whether
it is practical to adopt DOE's Environmental Impact Statement and would
conduct a formal hearing before a licensing Board. Then, the Commission
would, after deliberation on the evidence presented, including the
findings of the Board, make a decision on the application, with respect
to whether or not to authorize construction.
c) Waste Acceptance: NRC review and approval would be required
before any waste is authorized to be received at the site. A process
similar to the process for a construction authorization discussed above
would be followed. DOE would have to update the safety analysis report
and the NRC would conduct a new hearing to make a decision as to
whether to approve receipt and possession of waste onsite based on
compliance with the EPA standard. The NRC would conduct inspections to
assure that the waste received was in compliance with the
specifications contained in the application.
d) Closure: NRC review and approval of DOE's amendment for closure
would also be necessary. NRC would repeat the process discussed above
and the DOE's amendment would include an appropriate update with any
new information.
If confirmed, I intend to make a fair, open-minded and objective
evaluation of the information on the record with respect to site
suitability and, if an application for a geologic repository is
submitted, and on any decisions on a license application concerning
construction, waste acceptance and closure of a geologic repository.
Question 2. Do you believe that the NRC should require full-scale
testing of casks used for the transportation of high-level nuclear
waste?
Response. The NRC staff believes the current regulatory approach of
relying on modeling, analysis and/or physical testing, as well as scale
model testing of transportation casks, is adequate to demonstrate the
acceptability of the cask design and compliance with the requirements
of 10 CFR 71 without requiring that all casks be subjected to full-
scale testing. The casks are required to pass the design basis accident
testing requirements of 10 CFR 71 which are rigorous and include a 30
foot drop test on an unyielding surface, followed by puncture, fire,
and submersion tests.
The staff is also initiating a new study, referred to as the
Package Performance Study, which will examine the ability of
transportation casks to withstand severe, beyond design basis
accidents. This study is planned to include physical testing to
evaluate the cask's performance under accident conditions more severe
than the hypothetical accident tests. The staff will use the results of
this study to verify and validate the transportation accident modeling
and analysis, and will propose any changes in the regulatory approach,
as appropriate. In addition, the staff is following closely the
examination of the recent Baltimore tunnel train fire to learn any
information that should be considered relevant to NRC requirements.
If confirmed, I will review the results of staff analyses to
ascertain the adequacy of the approach, and will also assess the
results of the tests to ensure that adequate protection of the public
is maintained. If I conclude that additional full-scale testing is
necessary, I will make such a recommendation to the Commission.
Question 3. If the evidence presented by the Department of Energy
in their licence application for Yucca Mountain appears to indicate the
health and safety of Nevadans cannot be secured, would you be willing
to disapprove a license? What type of evidence do you believe is
sufficient to disqualify the site?
Response. I will disapprove a license application for Yucca
Mountain if adequate protection of health and safety cannot be secured
for Nevadans. The decision to approve or disapprove will be made solely
upon an assessment of the safety merits of the application and of all
pertinent information.
If confirmed, I will insist that the information provided is
comprehensive, valid to state-of-the-art standards, and that DOE has
satisfied the burden of proof that EPA's standards will be met.
Question 4. The Environmental Protection Agency's radiation
protection standards for the Yucca Mountain site limit the compliance
period to 10,000 years. If the maximum exposures are shown to occur
after 10,000 and they are larger than the standards set by the EPA for
the first 10,000 years of the repository, should the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission consider disqualifying the site?
Response. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 required the EPA to
establish specific radiation protection standards for a mined geologic
repository at Yucca Mountain. The Act requires that the NRC make an
assessment of the application to ensure compliance with EPA standards.
In June, 2001, the EPA promulgated its standards which established a
10,000 year compliance period. Under the Act, the EPA standards, and
NRC's conforming regulations, applicable to a repository at Yucca
Mountain, establish the standard for adequate protection of the public
health and safety. Presently, the EPA standards, including the 10,000
year compliance period, are being challenged in the courts. It is
possible that this could result in changes that would require a new
determination of adequacy by the NRC. Also, the U.S. Congress may
determine, based on pertinent health and safety information, that a
different compliance period is necessary.
If confirmed, I will be bound by the NRC regulations and the EPA
standards applicable to Yucca Mountain as they stand at the time of
decisionmaking.
Question 5. Reports indicate that the proposed pebble bed modular
reactors would be built without a containment structure. In light of
the recent terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC, do
you think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should require containment
structures for these designs?
Response. The Commission has required that a containment structure
be included for all licensed light water reactors (LWRs) as a last
physical barrier for protection against the release of radioactivity.
As more detailed information is acquired for potential accident
scenarios for pebble bed modular reactors (PBMR), decisions about the
necessary protective systems and structures will be made. I believe
that the protective systems for the PBMRs should be capable of
providing an equal or greater level of protection against the release
of radioactivity as that provided by LWRs. Additional requirements
could be needed based on analyses of the recent terrorist attacks.
Question 6. In light of the recent terrorist attacks and the
reported failure of many plants during NRC training exercises, should
the NRC reconsider implementing a self-regulated, industry training
program?
Response. The NRC has been considering improvements to its
safeguards program for nuclear power plants. The Operational Safeguards
Response Evaluation (OSRE) safeguards program, which is performance-
based, was designed to improve security inspection efforts by using
force-on-force exercises conducted by licensees as a method of
evaluating their response capabilities. While licensees are responsible
for identifying vulnerabilities in their security programs, their
tactical response capability has been enhanced by NRC's OSRE program.
This program has been revised and improved over time as new information
was learned, and it has proven to be effective in evaluating licensee
programs to meet design basis threats. The program has identified a
number of weaknesses in licensee performance. Where weaknesses were
identified, NRC ensured that corrective actions were taken.
It is my understanding that no decision has been made to replace
the OSRE with the Safeguards Performance Assessment (SPA). Earlier this
year, the Commission recognized that improvements could be made to its
safeguards activities and, therefore, decided to consider alternative
potential improvements to the safeguards evaluation process. One
approach which is being pursued is the SPA pilot program, which will be
conducted in addition to the ongoing OSRE program. For the year 2002,
the Commission approved conducting six OSREs and eight SPAs. At the
conclusion of this program, a comprehensive review of the results will
be conducted. One key aspect of this effort will be an evaluation of
the effectiveness of safeguards requirements and the oversight process.
NRC security and safeguards oversight activities are not limited to
the OSREs and the SPAs. The NRC has and will continue to implement the
baseline safeguards inspection program conducted by NRC inspectors
which includes reviews of areas such as access authorization, access
control measures, audit programs and responses to contingency events.
If confirmed, I intend to objectively evaluate the NRC's safeguards
oversight activities including the SPA pilot program and the OSREs, and
work with the Commission to finalize a decision on whether to implement
a self-regulated, industry training program.
Question 7. If economics will play the greatest role in the
decision to license and build new nuclear reactors, what are the most
important factors affecting the economic competitiveness of proposed
and existing nuclear power plants?
Response. Economics will play a dominant role in the industry
decision to build a new nuclear power plant, but the Commission has no
statutory role in aiding the industry's economic decision. NRC has the
responsibility to license and regulate nuclear power plants, and to
maintain a regulatory regime that, first and foremost, protects the
public health and safety, and the environment. I believe it must do so
in an efficient and effective manner.
Although the intricacies of business decisions are outside our role
as a health and safety regulator, I would expect that the factors which
are an important part of the business decision associated with a new
electricity production facility would include a broad range of issues.
One of the most important considerations would logically be the need
for electricity in a specific area of the country. Other considerations
would likely include the costs associated with planning, construction
and operation of the facility; an evaluation of alternatives for
electricity production such as natural gas, coal, or purchase
agreements with other producers; State, local and Federal license and
permit approvals; and the public environment or attitudes related to
the primary alternatives being considered.
Question 8. Do you expect the nuclear power industry to apply for a
license to construct a new nuclear power plant within the next 10
years? If so, do you expect that this will be a pebble bed modular
reactor, a conventional light-water reactor, or another type?
Response. The industry has expressed their intention to explore the
addition of new nuclear power plants. There are various possible
scenarios, but it appears that a new power plant within the next 10
years is not out of the question. The type of reactor that could be
selected would depend on factors such as the need for power, plant
economics as well as other industry requirements, including the lead
time for plant operation, and NRC's licensing requirements. In the
short term, utilizing the existing certified light water designs could
expedite bringing a new plant online. On the other hand, applications
for new advanced designs, such as the pebble bed modular reactor, could
necessitate significant analysis but could offer other advantages.
__________
Statement of Patrick Hayes (Pete) Johnson, Nominated to be Co-Chairman
of the Delta Regional Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you this morning as you consider President
George W. Bush's nomination of me as Federal Co-chairman of the newly
created Delta Regional Authority. I am especially appreciative and
humbled by my long time friends Senator Thad Cochran and Senator Trent
Lott being here today in support of my nomination. In fact it is they
who recommended me to the President and should this committee choose to
recommend me to the full Senate I will work diligently to live up to
their expectations and those of the President as well as those of this
committee and the entire Congress.
As a point of personal privilege I would like to take this
opportunity to introduce to the committee my family who is here with me
today. My wife Margaret of 31 years, our daughter Mary Margaret Johnson
who currently lives and works in Atlanta and Anne Clark Downing and her
husband of 3 weeks Steve Downing. They too live and work in Atlanta.
The weekend Anne Clark and Steve were married Mary Margaret became
engaged and we are excited about having another son-in-law.
When I was first approached about this position I said I was not
interested but after prayerful consideration and talking with those
whose opinions I value it became apparent that I could not pass up the
opportunity to make a positive impact on the lives of the people
throughout our region for generations to come. When I was a young trust
officer of our home town bank I was charged with settling the estate of
one of our prominent local elected officials. When I sat at the desk he
toiled over for his entire life I noticed a small piece of paper under
the glass on top of his desk and on it he had typed ``What you do for
yourself dies with you and what you do for others lives on.'' Indeed,
as I come before you today hoping you will find favor in my nomination
I come with a desire to be part of building an economy in our region
that will change the lives of our citizens for generations to come.
Public service in my family is not a casual undertaking. In fact I
am the third generation in our family to be involved in public service.
My grandfather was a Member of Congress serving the 6th District of
Mississippi in 1918 through 1922. He returned home to serve our State
as a Judge and later Governor. My uncle served our State as Lt.
Governor and Governor and I have served our State as State Auditor and
our nation as State Director of USDA's Farmers Home Administration.
I spent the early years of my life on a small farm in south
Mississippi. My family was unable to put me through college however I
graduated from the University of Mississippi in 1971 after working my
way through waiting tables and a variety of other jobs. Law school was
no easier. I complete night law school while holding down a full time
job with the First National Bank of Jackson, Mississippi. At age 26 I
was named to head one of the State's largest trust departments with the
Bank of Clarksdale in Clarksdale, Mississippi.
For almost three decades I have been active in trying to make our
community, State and region a better place to live. The Delta Regional
Authority holds great promise for our region and I believe that with
your help we can change the lives of millions of Americans for
generations to come.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I'll be glad to try and answer any questions you may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Patrick Hayes (Pete) Johnson to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Please explain in detail the operation of Correction
Systems of Mississippi, Inc. Please include the explanation your
relationship to the corporation before your nomination as Federal Co-
Chair of the Delta Regional Authority and how the relationship will
change if confirmed to the position.
Please include in your response information on the following:
a) ownership interest in Correction Systems;
b) payment of management fees to you by Correction Systems;
c) dividends received/to be received by you from Correction
Systems;
d) promissory notes issued to you by the company; and
e) any other relevant information regarding your relationship with
Correction Systems.
Response. As State Auditor of Mississippi from 1988 to 1992 my
staff conducted a study concerning the feasibility of privatizing
correctional facilities. The conclusion was that there would be
substantial savings to the State if privatization was implemented. Two
years after leaving office a State Senate committee called and asked me
to appear before it and discuss my findings. At that time the State was
under a court order to relieve prison overcrowding and a Federal Judge
had imposed a penalty on the State of $500 per inmate per day. During
conversations with Department of Corrections staff I was asked if I
knew of anyone who could provide a restitution correctional facility
for female prisoners in the Jackson, Mississippi area. I personally
embarked on the task and formed Correction Systems of Mississippi, Inc.
Which now leases the facility to the State of Mississippi. I own 100
percent of the company. I am compensated in the form of a management
fee which is paid on a monthly basis. Should I be confirmed by the
Senate I will withdraw from active participation in the company at
which time any compensation received by me from the company will be in
the form of dividends. Presently the company owes me funds loaned to it
by me which were used by the company to settle contractor claims. The
company pays me $5,415.10 per month to service that debt and I in turn
pay to Valley Bank $3,301.70 per month. The contract with the State
will expire in 3 years unless re-negotiated prior to that time.
Question 2. Please explain your relationship with the Clarksdale
Country Club. Please include in your response:
a) any ownership interest you have had or currently have in the
organization;
b) your current relationship with the club;
c) a detailed description of the Clarksdale Country Club's policy
for voting on new prospective members including past practices and
current practices;
d) a detailed description of current or past Clarksdale Country
Club by-laws or practices that may have discriminated against persons
based on race, creed, color, religion, or sex; and
e) any other relevant information regarding your relationship to or
membership in the Clarksdale Country Club.
Response. Over the past 25 years I have been a member of the
Clarksdale Country Club. When I left Clarksdale in 1988 to assume the
State Auditor post in Jackson, Mississippi I sold my stock. Upon moving
back to Clarksdale in 1991 my wife was given stock in the Country Club
which is now in her name. Twenty 5 years ago any 3 members could deny
anyone membership for any reason and a prominent local accountant was
denied membership for what some of us thought was because he was
Jewish. I was part of a group that led an effort to change the by-laws
so that this would not happen again. The negative votes requirement was
raised to 25 and since that time a number of our Jewish friends have
become members. Recently an African American physician applied for
membership. He received 25 negative votes and was denied membership.
Once again I joined an effort to change the by-laws to raise the
threshold so that a small group could not thwart the will of the entire
membership. Our proposal to raise it to 200 was too ambitious and the
membership voted the change down. Since that time I have successfully
negotiated a compromise with those opposing the 200 requirement. The
compromise included that those opposed to the 200 requirement would
recruit, if necessary, sponsor and support an African-American family
in the Clarksdale Country Club.
Question 3. Please detail your service as chairman of the
Mississippi Marketing Counsel. Please include in your answer your role
and responsibilities as chairman.
Was this an appointed position? If so, who appointed you?
Response. I was appointed to this position by Governor Bill Allain.
At one time it had the responsibility of marketing and promoting
Mississippi products however, upon assuming the position I realized
that it essentially had no power. I convened the counsel on two may be
three occasions and concluded that it was not a good use of the
Taxpayers money and recommended that it be abolished. To my knowledge
my recommendation was eventually followed.
Question 4. Please detail your service as the State Director of the
Farmers Home Administration. Please include in your answer your role
and responsibilities as State director.
Was this an appointed position? If so, who appointed you?
Response. I was appointed by former President Bush to this position
in 1992. I oversaw the farm and rural development programs in
Mississippi for USDA. That included loan and project approval. Loans
were made for struggling farmers and low income housing and grants were
made to rural communities for sewer, water and business and industry
development programs. It was one of the largest State offices in the
United States at that time. Since serving in that position the
responsibilities have been divided into separate agencies.
__________
Statement of Brigadier General Carl A. Strock, Nominated to be a Member
of the Mississippi River Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am deeply honored to
appear before you as a nominee for membership on the Mississippi River
Commission. As a soldier, an engineer, and a life-long public servant I
am excited about this opportunity to serve the nation in this important
capacity. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement about
the Mississippi River Commission, the Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) project, and my qualifications for this appointment.
The Mississippi River Commission, established by Act of Congress on
June 28, 1879, consists of seven members, all of whom are appointed by
the President of the United States subject to confirmation by the
Senate. Three members are Corps of Engineers officers, one of whom
serves as president; one member is from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and three members are from the civilian
sector, two of whom must be civil engineers.
From its inception in 1879, the Commission has been charged with
the task of planning and implementing a program of flood damage
reduction projects and navigation improvements on the Mississippi
River. More recently, project purposes have been expanded to include
environmental restoration. This task continues to be conducted in
concert with the myriad of political institutions, individuals, and
public entities which have major interests in seeing that the water
resources needs and opportunities of the Mississippi Valley are
evaluated, planned, designed, constructed, and maintained.
As established in 1879, the Commissioners were to serve as advisers
in planning and implementing water resource projects and programs on
the Mississippi River between the Head of Passes below New Orleans to
its headwaters. Since 1928, the Commission has focused on the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of May 15, 1928, to be implemented under oversight of the
Commission. The MR&T project extends generally from the confluence of
the Ohio River to the Head of Passes below New Orleans and covers
portions of seven States. It receives water from all or portions of 31
States and part of two Canadian provinces, or roughly 41 percent of the
contiguous United States. Effective planning, design, construction, and
operation of the widespread and complex MR&T project have been assisted
greatly by the Commission's active consultation with the public,
particularly on its semiannual lower Mississippi River inspection
trips, and by the high degree of professionalism that has been
developed in its staff.
A major flood on the lower Mississippi River would have
catastrophic effects on the inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley and
the economy of the nation were it not for the protection provided by
the levees and other flood control works along the main stem of the
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. Many have noted that the
comprehensive project on the lower river provided for passage of major
floods in 1973, 1983, 1997, and other years without the extensive
damage suffered in the upper river area during the 1993, 1995, and 2001
flood events.
In addition, the navigation features of the project help to
maintain the river for shipping import and export commodities between
inland ports and world markets.
I am well qualified to serve as a member of the Mississippi River
Commission by virtue of my education, professional qualifications,
experience, and commitment to public service. I hold a Bachelor of
Civil Engineering degree from The Virginia Military Institute and a
Master of Civil Engineering degree from Mississippi State University. I
belong to a number of engineering societies and am a registered
professional engineer in the State of Missouri. I am also a graduate of
the Army's Command and General Staff College and the National War
College, institutions that develop leadership, strategic thinking, and
decisionmaking in a values-based environment.
In addition to my formal education my 30 years of service in the
United States Army have prepared me for the responsibilities I will
assume as a member of the Mississippi River Commission. Besides
extensive service in combat engineer assignments I have three
assignments in the Corps of Engineers and considerable experience in
engineering and construction from the project to the corporate level.
From 1980 to 1983 I served in Mobile District as a Project Engineer
multiple projects on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in Mississippi
and Alabama. I also served as Resident Engineer on Columbus Air Force
Base in Mississippi. My service as a senior officer in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has provided me with the opportunity to work with
leaders and agencies at the local, State, and national level and with
non-governmental organizations. These relationships coupled with my
sound working knowledge of authorities and legislative processes will
enable me to help fashion balanced solutions to complex problems that
best serve the interests of the people and the nation.
From 1997 to 1999 I commanded the Pacific Ocean Division in
Honolulu, Hawaii. In that capacity I had responsibility for the
construction and maintenance of numerous shallow and deep draft
harbors, navigation channels, coastal protection structures and flood
control ,works--most in environmentally sensitive areas of Alaska and
Hawaii.
From 1999 to 2001 I commanded the Northwestern Division in
Portland, Oregon. The Northwestern Division covers 14 States and has
responsibility for two major drainage basins, the Columbia and the
Missouri. While my experience in the Northwest contributed dramatically
to my understanding of the economic, engineering, and environmental
considerations of major rivers, it is my experience on the Missouri
that will be most valuable to the Commission. I have a detailed
understanding of the Missouri River and its impact on the Mississippi
River. During certain periods of the year the Missouri contributes up
to 70 percent of the flow of the Mississippi in the reach between St.
Louis and Cairo. This fact illustrates the value of a Commissioner who
has an understanding of the interaction between these two great rivers.
Over the past 2 years I served on the Commission as a member-designee.
During this time I participated in four inspection trips and became
very familiar with the Mississippi River and Tributaries project and
those works that make the system so effective in flood damage reduction
and navigation. I have worked hard to develop a true understanding of
the interests of the many groups who use and enjoy the River and depend
on the Corps to address their concerns--navigators, farmers, sportsmen,
port operators, levee boards and drainage districts, environmental
interest groups, and others.
If confirmed for this position, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to
playing a key role in enhancing the economic vitality and environmental
quality of the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
Mr. Chairman, for your information, I have attached my complete
biography. This completes my prepared statement.
Again, thank you for your consideration. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
Statement of Marianne Lamont Horinko, Nominated to be Assistant
Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith, and distinguished members of the
committee: Thank you for the privilege of coming before you today. I am
honored that President Bush nominated me to be Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) at the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). I believe that all of the
public and private sector positions that I have been fortunate enough
to hold in the past have set the stage for this opportunity to serve
our country. If confirmed, you have my word that I will bring
thoughtful deliberation, integrity, and enthusiasm to the challenges
that loom ahead.
I am especially proud to introduce my husband, Tim Horinko, my
children, Kaitlyn and Hunter, my parents, John and Johanna Maccini, and
my in-laws, Terry and Larry Horinko. Finally, I would also like to
thank my many colleagues and friends who have given so generously of
their support and friendship--not just today, but always.
I am particularly attracted to this opportunity to serve EPA
because, thanks to my father, I probably have some groundwater running
through my veins. My dad is a geologist who worked for many years as a
university professor and career civil servant at the National Science
Foundation. He taught me to love science, and by example, showed me
that public service was not merely a job, but a higher calling. My
mother provided strong support and reinforcement of our love of science
and curiosity about our natural environment. Their great respect for
the natural treasures of our lands impressed me deeply, and it is
because of their early influence that I chose the protection of the
environment as my own profession.
In my testimony today, I would like to share some of the key themes
and approaches I would bring to this position, if confirmed. They
include: innovation, information sharing, and partnerships.
One of my principal observations is that there has been a sea
change in Federal attitudes and approaches to managing waste since I
left EPA. The old command and control method has been supplemented, in
some measure, by partnerships and consensus building as the means of
cooperative problem solving.
The expansion of Brownfields approaches to other OSWER programs is
a symbol of that new way of thinking, and it carries the message of
productive future land uses as determined by local communities to all
of our waste efforts.
An example of that innovation is the emerging linkage between
environmental cleanup and community revitalization. The Brownfields
story is all about a new way of doing the government's business. Like
Governor Whitman and President Bush, I wholeheartedly support passage
of Brownfields legislation during this session of Congress. With a
strong Brownfields bill and working in tandem with State and local
brownfields efforts, there is no limit to what we can accomplish.
Significant challenges face the EPA work force. Much has been made
about the baby-boomer retirement outflow, and the need for a newly
energized and well-equipped work force to address the challenges of the
future. We need to build a work force that cherishes diversity, rewards
innovative thinking and creates an atmosphere where programmatic risk-
taking is encouraged.
I think that there is also great opportunity on the information
side of the equation. More emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring that
all stakeholders have access to clear and understandable information
about the health and environmental risks they face. Policymaking cannot
and should not exist in a vacuum. I believe that the people who create
Federal regulations should be required to meet face-to-face with the
citizens whose lives they impact. What better way to experience, first
hand, how the policies we make here in Washington, can affect the
comfort and quality of life in our towns and cities across the United
States?
People outside the Agency tell me that it's impossible to figure
out who does what in government in order to get simple answers to their
questions. Through partnerships and collaboration, the sharing of
information and practices among our cleanup programs will reduce the
inconsistencies that often plague our stakeholders. If confirmed, I
plan to work closely with our State and Tribal partners to ensure that
all cleanups are both protective of human health and the environment,
as well as implemented with an eye toward community revitalization.
Finally, given the tragic events of September 11, I feel that I
must take a moment to talk about a key role for the OSWER Assistant
Administrator as EPA's lead on counter-terrorism. I spent virtually all
of that fateful day with Governor Whitman and the outstanding staff at
our Emergency Operations Center on Pennsylvania Avenue. Amid an ocean
of chaos, we observed, with wonder and awe, an island of calm, steady
professionals who make up EPA's emergency response team. These
individuals are not only technically and substantively competent, but
have pulled together an organized approach to dealing with the horror
of chemical, biological or air attacks on our citizens. When terror
struck on Tuesday, they sprung into action and made certain that the
public health and safety of our people were protected and assured. They
are truly the unsung heroes of our government. If confirmed, I pledge
to give our counter-terrorism activities the highest priority, and to
do all that I can to make their jobs easier.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Marianne Lamont Horinko to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. This past July, Resources for the Future released a
publication titled ``Superfund's Future: What Will It Cost?'' One of
the major findings is that considerable work remains to be done at
sites already on EPA's National Priorities List, and that EPA's
Superfund costs will not decline before 2006 at the earliest. These
conclusions are contrary to views that the Superfund program is
``winding down.'' I am interested in your understanding of the progress
of the Superfund program. What is the current revenue remaining in the
Superfund Trust Fund? How many sites will be added to the NPL this
year? How many NPL sites will achieve construction complete listing
this year? What do you believe is the future of the Superfund Program?
Response. EPA expects that the balance of revenue remaining in the
Superfund Trust Fund at the end of fiscal year 2001 will be
approximately $955 million.
EPA has proposed listing 45 sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL) this fiscal year. EPA has also finalized 29 sites on the NPL this
fiscal year. No additional sites will be proposed or listed in fiscal
year 2001.
The Agency is working to complete construction, before the fiscal
year ends, at as many sites as possible to reach the Agency's goal of
75 construction completions. While the Agency is making much progress
on cleaning up these sites, the Agency expects the final number of
construction completions, for a variety of reasons, to be lower than
the original goal. One key factor affecting the final number of
construction completions is that many of the sites with remaining work
tend to be more complex, on average, than those already completed.
Nonetheless, the Agency is committed to and will continue to work at
these and other Superfund sites to ensure that they are cleaned up as
quickly as possible.
As I stated in my testimony, my key themes would be innovation,
information sharing, and partnerships. These concepts will be applied
to the Superfund program through expanding Brownfields, better
involving the community in such things as future land use, and ensuring
better access to environmental information. If confirmed, I plan to
work very closely with this committee, and look forward to our
cooperative efforts to speed Superfund cleanups.
Question 2. Under RCRA, EPA has a statutory responsibility, with
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, to ensure that Federal
agencies and all political subdivisions using appropriated Federal
dollars are purchasing products containing recovered content. In
addition, there is still a operative Executive Order (no. 13101), which
requires EPA to provide advice to Federal agencies on and require those
agencies to buy environmentally preferable products. A recent GAO
report was critical of the implementation of the program, including the
availability of useful data that Congress can use to effectively
oversee the program and determine whether the Agencies are in
compliance. Will you support continuation and strengthening of these
procurement efforts?
Response. Yes, I support the continuation and strengthening of the
procurement efforts of Federal agencies and am committed to working
with The Office of Federal Environmental Executive to promote the use
and purchase of products made with recycled content and to assist
agencies across the Federal Government, to comply with the Executive
Order 13101.
I recognize that a recent GAO report was critical of the
implementation of this program, and the Agency is reviewing this report
carefully. I do know however, EPA is currently developing a secure,
internet-based data base with the names of product suppliers and
manufacturers that will be accessible by users from any web browser
connected to the internet. This project ensures that EPA will be better
able to provide procuring agencies with up-to-date information they can
use to buy recycled-content products.
Question 3. Recently, EPA issued a Chemical Safety Advisory which
said, at this time of heightened alert, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in coordination with the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) suggests
that those who manufacture, distribute, transport or store hazardous
chemicals should be especially vigilant regarding the physical security
of those chemicals.
You may be aware of the accident prevention provisions (section
112(r)(7)) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by PL106-40. OSWER has been
given the primary responsibility at the Agency for implementing these
provisions, which include providing access to information on the
offsite consequences of accidents, including those caused by criminal
or terrorist acts, to local emergency response personnel, qualified
researchers and limited access to the public. That law also requires
EPA to assist the Attorney General in preparing and submitting to
Congress an overdue report on the vulnerability of the facilities
mentioned above to criminal and terrorist activities.
Question 3a. What steps will you take to ensure that the owners and
operators of facilities addressed in the Agency's Advisory have acted
or are acting to comply with their general duty under section 112(r)(1)
to identify hazards, design and maintain safe facilities, prevent
releases and to minimize the consequences of releases that do occur?
Response 3a. I look forward to exploring with EPA and other
government decisionmakers the policy, resource and legal issues
relevant to determining what steps should be taken to safeguard
hazardous chemicals from criminal and terrorist acts, and will keep you
informed of our progress. To date, EPA has taken prudent steps,
including issuance of the Site Security Alert, to warn chemical
facilities of the potential for criminally caused releases and to
advise them of available measures for increasing site security. The
Agency has yet to take an enforcement action against any facility for
failure to adequately secure its site.
EPA is also assisting the Department of Justice in its study of the
vulnerability of chemical facilities to criminal and terrorist activity
and current industry practices regarding site security. From the study,
we expect to learn more about possible measures for increasing site
security and to communicate those measures to industry.
Question 3b. Will you provide the committee with a regular update
on the Agency's efforts to ensure that this general duty requirement is
being actively implemented?
Response 3b. If confirmed, I will certainly update the committee on
the Agency's efforts to ensure that this general duty requirement is
being actively implemented 4. Question: I am pleased by your enthusiasm
for recycling. At today's hearing, you spoke of recycling being a
``gateway'' to engage consumers. I agree and look forward to working
with you on this important issue. How can we promote an increase in
nationwide recycling efforts? What additional administrative actions
can be taken by EPA that are not already in place? What type of
legislation is necessary at the Federal level?
Response. To increase recycling nationally, attention must be
directed to two fronts simultaneously: fostering the viability of
markets for secondary or recycled materials; and helping local
governments learn how to reduce the cost burden of collecting and
processing recyclable materials. In partnership with government and
industry, EPA can foster extended product responsibility and product
stewardship, encouraging voluntary efforts by manufacturers to reduce
waste, use secondary materials as feedstock, and to take back products
at the end of their useful life. Through training and outreach, EPA can
help transfer lessons learned from one community to others. EPA can
publicize new and expanding recycling technologies. Assistance,
outreach, and education can go far to advance recycling across the
natin. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee to
advance the cause of recycling.
Question 4. I am pleased by your enthusiasm for recycling. At
today's hearing, you spoke of recycling being a ``gateway'' to engage
consumers. I agree and look forward to working with you on this
important issue. How can we promote an increase in nationwide recycling
efforts? What additional adminstrative actions can be taken by EPA that
are not already in place? What type of legislation is necessary at the
Federal level?
Response. To increase recycling nationally, attention must be
directed to two fronts simultaneously: fostering the viability of
markets for secondary or recycled materials; and helping local
governments learn how to reduce the cost burden of collecting and
processing recyclable materials. In partnership with government and
industry, EPA can foster extended product responsibility and product
stewardship, encouraging voluntary efforts by manufacturers to reduce
waste, use secondary materials as feedstock, and to take back products
at the end of their useful life. Through training and outreach, EPA can
help transfer lessons learned from one community to others. EPA can
publicize new and expanding recycling technologies. Assistance,
outreach, and education can go far to advance recycling across the
nation. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee to
advance the cause of recycling.
__________
Responses of Marianne Lamont Horinko to Additional Questions from
Senator Smith
Question 1. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data base and public
information program has been in place for some time. Recent addition of
the waste services industry to the TRI system appears to invite
confusion about the entities responsible for reported chemical releases
to the environment and where such releases actually occur.
For example, a company shipping waste containing TRI chemicals to
an offsite RCRA Subtitle C TSD facility must report this ``transfer''
to a permitted facility as an ``offsite release.'' This transferred
amount is then added to the generator's actual releases to air, land,
and water to determine the company's ``total releases.'' In reality,
however, the transferred chemicals were managed at a permitted RCRA
facility distant from the community (or even State) which must itself
report the TRI chemicals as a release to the environment where they are
located. EPA later corrects for this double counting in determining
overall totals. This raises a number of important questions:
a) Is this an accurate summary of the current TRI reporting
requirement for such waste transfers?
b) Is this approach required by statute or regulation? If so,
please provide specific citations. If a matter of agency policy, please
confirm.
c) Why is a company which transfers TRI chemicals contained in
waste shipped to a permitted RCRA Subtitle C facility for final
disposition (which may include disposal or recycling) required to
report this transfer as a release to the environment?
d) Isn't the current reporting requirement likely to confuse and
misinform the local community and other members of the public about
releases to the environment in the geographic area where the transfer
originated?
e) Wouldn't it be more informative to the public to require the
company transferring TRI chemicals in the manner described above to
report them as a ``transfer'' to a permitted offsite management
facility (e.g.; a RCRA treatment, storage and disposal facility) rather
than as releases to the environment?
e) Wouldn't the alternative approach suggested under Question 5.
above improve TRI program administration efficiency by eliminating the
need to later correct for double counting by the company and the
offsite facility?
f) As Assistant Administrator, will you support an improved
approach that improves program efficiency and provides more accurate
and informative public reporting?
Response. In answer to (a) through (g), as you know, the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) is run by EPA's Office of Environmental
Information (OEI), and does not fall under the responsibility of the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Pursuant to
conversations with your staff, OSWER will work with OIE to provide
detailed responses to your questions. If confirmed as Assistant
Administrator, you have my commitment that I will work closely with OEI
to achieve improved approaches that advance program efficiency and
provide more accurate and informative public reporting.
Question 2. In 42 USC 9619 (Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the provision on ``response
action contractors'', provides the following:
``(f) Competition--Response action contractors and subcontractors
for program management, construction management, architectural and
engineering, surveying and mapping, and related services shall be
selected in accordance with title IX of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 [40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.]. The
Federal selection procedures shall apply to appropriate contracts
negotiated by all Federal Governmental agencies involved in carrying
out this chapter. Such procedures shall be followed by response action
contractors and subcontractors.''
a) Even though this provision was enacted in 1986, it is my
information that EPA has issued any guidance or regulation to implement
this provision in law. To what extent has EPA implemented this
provision, particularly with regard to contracts and subcontracts for
mapping services through guidance to private contractors and EPA
contracting officers or promulgated an EPA Supplement to the FAR or
what will EPA do to assure proper implementation and enforcement of
this provision of law?
b) The ``Brooks Act'' (40 U.S.C. 541 et. seq.) and the Federal
Acquisition Regulations (48 C. F. R. 36.601-4 Implementation) specify
that a broad range of mapping services, including ``Mapping associated
with the research, planning, development, design, construction, or
alteration of real property is considered to be an architectural and
engineering service and is to be procured pursuant to 36.601.'' This
clearly provides for use of the Qualifications Based selection (QBS)
process for more than just services related to design and construction.
However, there have been numerous instances in which EPA is not using
the QBS process for mapping services (See, for example, SOL U41045,
PSA#2900 NDN-186-0172-2551-1, RFQ-GA-01-00004, RFQ EPA-039-00, and RFQ-
RT-98-00065). What is EPA doing, or what does EPA propose to do, to
assure that the law and regulations are properly implemented with
regard to using the QBS process for mapping contracts?
Response for Questions 2a and 2b. EPA has followed Federal
contracting procedures in awarding response action contracts. In terms
of mapping services, the Superfund program of OSWER had an Interagency
Agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and did not
procure mapping services directly. If confirmed, I would be happy to
work with this committee to address concerns in this area to the extent
they involve OSWER programs.
Question 3. Is it the policy of EPA to retain contractors to
support regulatory oversight of those same agencies who are contracted
to other Federal Agencies--specifically under CERCLA and/or RCRA
corrective action programs? What is EPA policy on potential conflict of
interest in similar situations?
Response. EPA contract policies do not allow contractors for
responsible parties under CERCLA to perform work for EPA. Contractors
can, however, work for multiple Federal agencies, since it is a Federal
policy that in a unified Federal Government there is no conflict of
interest in this situation. If the committee knows of an issue in this
area, if confirmed, I will work with you to address it.
______
Responses of Marianne Lamont Horinko to Additional Questions from
Senator Bond
Question 1. The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) developed a methodology
to assess the potential hazard of organic compounds, which relies upon
a criteria of persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT). OSW
keeps a list of compounds meeting the PBT criteria. EPA offices, and
many States, use the PBT list for various regulatory actions, including
recently increased reporting requirements for metals.
There is concern in the scientific community over the
appropriateness of applying the PBT methodology to metals. Scientific
experts, including EPA scientists, described the problems of applying
the PBT methodology to metals at an EPA co-sponsored ``Experts
Workshop'' in January 2000. In May 2000, the EPA Science Advisory Board
used an Advisory Opinion on risks surrounding smelters to take the
opportunity to state that EPA's proposals to classify metals as PBTs
was problematic because the methodolgy did not accurately describe
metals' environmental characteristics.
In July 2000, the House Science Committee, in a bipartisan letter
signed by the Majority and Ranking members of the full committee and
appropriate subcommittee, noted the scientific controversy. The
committee strongly urged EPA to seek independent peer review and refer
the question of the scientific appropriateness of applying the PBT
criteria to metals to the SAB before deciding whether to include metals
in any of the Agency's PBT programs or lists.
In the fiscal year 2001 VA/HUD Conference Report, I proposed, and
the conferees and Congress accepted, language urging EPA to submit the
question of PBT and metals to independent peer review. Specifically, we
urged EPA to seek independent peer review and refer to the SAB the
question of the scientific appropriateness of applying the PBT criteria
and methodology to metals before any application of the PBT criteria
and methodology to metals.
EPA subsequently disregarded these congressional directives by
finalizing increased reporting regulations based upon application of
the PBT methodology to metals without ensuring the scientific validity
of the action by submitting the issue to independent peer review.
Question 1a. If confirmed, will you support any EPA actions which
disregard my VA/HUD language or Congress' bipartisan direction to
submit the question of the appropriateness of applying the PBT
methodology to metals for independent peer review by the SAB?
Response. If confirmed I have no intention of disregarding the
direction you supplied to EPA.
Question 1b. If confirmed, would you support any lesser action by
EPA, such as a consultation, which would fail to meet EPA's Independent
Peer Review Guidelines?
Response. I would seek to ensure that EPA's peer review guidelines
are met.
Question 1c. If EPA is confident of the scientific underpinnings of
the application of the PBT methodolgy to metals, what does the Agency
have fear by submitting the issue to the SAB for peer review?
Response. The specific charge to the SAB is currently being worked
out within the Agency.
Question 1d. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure
that scientific discussion and debate on this issue within EPA,
especially by the Office of Solid Waste, is open, free and fully
represented alongside other non-scientific and policy concerns?
Response. If confirmed, I assure you that EPA will have an open and
fully representative discussion and debate on all concerns.
Question 1e. If confirmed, will you take steps to discourage EPA
regional offices, as well as States and localities, from characterizing
metals as PBT substances before EPA completes SAB review? Answer: OSWER
is trying to focus the waste minimization program on reducing hazardous
constituents of highest concern from the waste streams sent for
disposal. In carrying out that program, the Agency will certainly work
to keep regions, States and localities from inappropriately
characterizing any substances.
Question 2. This summer, EPA announced its intention to issue an
action plan in response to recommendations made by Resources for the
Future (RFF) in a study estimating the Federal costs of Superfund from
fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2009. The RFF study raised some
very serious questions about where Superfund dollars are being spent
and how much is going to site cleanup. Many other studies of the
Superfund program, including those done by the US General Accounting
Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and Business Roundtable, have
found similar program and fiscal management problems, while also
concluding that the program has matured and will not require the same
level of funding needed in the past.
Of the four major recommendations made by Resources for the Future,
two concerned the need for EPA to get its financial house in order. A
third focused on the uncertainty surrounding the nature, number and
cost of future NPL sites. Clearly, a number of significant questions
remain about current program management as well as the future workload
and makeup of the program. A Superfund action plan also presents
opportunities for this Administration to revitalize and expand on
Superfund Administrative Reforms begun in the past reforms aimed at
making Superfund fairer, more efficient, and more cost-effective.
Question 2a. Will you have an opportunity to shape the Superfund
action plan before the EPA Administrator approves it?
Response. I have met with the principal author of the Resources for
the Future report on Superfund costs and have been briefed on the
action plan the Agency is developing. I believe that the action plan
will address the key recommendations in the report, as well as address
some of the related issues facing the program. If confirmed, I plan to
take an active role in refining and implementing the Agency's Superfund
action plan, and look forward to working closely with this committee on
the future of Superfund.
Question 2b. What are your priorities for Superfund administrative
reform?
Response. If confirmed, my key administrative reform themes will be
innovation, information sharing, and partnerships. These concepts will
be applied to the Superfund program through expanding Brownfields,
better involving the community in such things as future land use, and
ensuring better access to environmental information. I will also take
an active role in implementing the Superfund action plan. I plan to
work very closely with this committee to improve the Superfund program.
Question 3. In 1992, Congress directed EPA to revise the Mixture
and Derived-From Rule. On May 16, 2001, EPA issued final regulations
re-promulgating the original rule with one minor new revision.
In the preamble supporting the rule, the Agency expressed it's
intent to ``continue to pursue actions to reduce any overregulation of
low-risk wastes arising from the mixture and derived-from rules.''
Specifically, the preamble discusses EPA's intent to develop ``two
targeted exemptions: one for certain solvents destined for wastewater
treatment and discharge under the Clean Water Act, and another for
slagged combustion residues from hazardous waste combustors.'' The
preamble also describes other targeted exemptions being assessed for
development. Materials supporting EPA's 2002 budget request also
discussed the Agency's intent to develop approaches to exempt low-risk
wastes from full Subtitle C regulations.
The environmental management world has changed dramatically since
waste management regulations were promulgated in the early 1980's.
Industry has invested enormous sums in improved waste management
infrastructure and commitment to environmental protection. State
program capabilities have increased significantly in their ability to
manage wastes. Finally, the breadth of other statutory and regulatory
programs such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Superfund
program have matured such that many waste streams are also regulated
under non-RCRA authorities. We support EPA's intent to revisit RCRA
regulations, particularly the mixture and derived-from rules, to tailor
them to better reflect current wastes and waste management capacities.
However, since these statements were made prior to your nomination as
Assistant Administrator:
Question 3a. What are your goals for addressing any over-regulation
of low-risk waste by the current RCRA program? Do you have thoughts on
a timetable for such proposals?
Response. I am firmly committed to examining possible over-
regulation of low-risk waste streams that are subject to the RCRA
hazardous waste program, and I am committed to exploring the
possibility of regulatory change in this area. I am certainly aware of
the concerns industry has expressed, and I know EPA staff have met with
industry representatives to better understand their perspective. If
confirmed, I plan to continue that dialog. EPA has also invited States
to participate in the discussions, and has also notified waste
management industry and environmental groups about planned activities,
and will invite a broader participation from these groups as the
proposals progress.
Regarding timeframes for proposed rulemakings, EPA expects to
propose at least a first round of changes in 2002. One category of
wastes high on EPA's list is certain solvents undergoing wastewater
treatment under the Clean Water Act. In addition, EPA is also
evaluating other possible targeted exemptions. Depending on what
preliminary analyses reveal, EPA hopes to develop additional proposals
in 2003.
Question 4. When we passed the original Resource Conservation &
Recovery Act twenty-five years ago, our goal was ``to recover valuable
materials and energy from solid waste'' as well as to assure that
hazardous waste was managed to protect human health and the
environment. Since then, EPA has used its authority to greatly improve
waste management. In fact, most of the work that RCRA explicitly
assigned OSWER in this regard has been accomplished. However, work to
encourage the recovery of materials and energy before they become waste
has barely begun.
The former Administration, through initiatives such as Project XL
and the Common Sense Initiative, demonstrated that there are other ways
to obtain desired environmental performance without the inflexibility
of command-and-control regulations. These initiative as well as a
series of reports and studies, have also demonstrated that in some
cases, the very regulations promulgated to manage waste can discourage
recycling. Over the last decade the Agency has acknowledged the
disincentives to recycling embodied in the RCRA hazardous waste rules,
has conducted numerous studies, has evaluated numerous recommendations
with broad, bipartisan stakeholder support, and yet has failed to take
any meaningful action to remedy the problem. The courts have been very
critical of EPA for its overly broad regulation of the recycling of
secondary materials as well. No efforts have been made to conform the
recycling regulations to these court decisions. At the same time,
industry has vastly increased its efficiencies in converting raw
materials to products. Technological innovation has led to the ability
to reuse and recycle formerly discarded materials and to avoid the
generation of wastes.
Based on recent work on material flows conducted by the World
Resource Institute, work on life-cycle impacts of recycling,
landfilling and incineration conducted by Environmental Defense, and a
commentary on overcoming barriers to Waste Utilization prepared by
EPA's own Science Advisory Board, it seems there is both a need and
opportunity to encourage the recovery of materials and energy before
they enter the waste stream, so that material or energy value, that
would otherwise be discarded, would be put to higher and better use.
Question 4a. Can you discuss with us your vision for bringing
``resource conservation and recovery'' into RCRA?
Response. I see RCRA as having two principal goals: (a) protecting
human health and the environment and (2) reducing waste and conserving
energy and natural resources. Although reducing pollutants at their
source is EPA's highest priority for conservation, recycling is a very
close second. I am very eager to promote the recycling of solid and
hazardous waste because such recycling makes good economic and
environmental sense. It can conserve virgin resources, and save time
and money as well.
EPA recently has been engaged in an effort to remove or eliminate
regulatory disincentives for recycling, while maintaining protection of
human health and the environment. EPA's actions include national
rulemakings which have streamlined regulations to encourage recycling
for several kinds of wastes, including batteries, pesticides,
thermostats, mercury-containing lamps, and circuit boards. EPA is
preparing to propose in the next few months a rule which would promote
recycling of cathode ray tubes from computers and televisions, along
with mercury-containing devices. The Agency's Project Excellence and
Leadership (Project XL), the State of New Jersey's Goldtrack Program
(an XL project), and other projects have allowed State and local
governments, businesses and Federal facilities to develop with EPA
innovative strategies to test better or more cost-effective ways of
achieving environmental and public health protection. I believe there
are other innovative ways EPA can increase opportunities for
environmentally sound recycling, and look forward to working with this
committee in this regard.
Question 4b. Do you believe that the Agency has enough statutory
authority to revamp its ``definition of solid waste'' rules to remove
the current impediments to recycling?
Response. Yes, at this point I believe EPA has sufficient statutory
authority to revise the definition of solid waste to remove current
impediments to waste recycling. I look forward to continuing these
efforts and to work closely with States to identify and implement
further opportunities.
Question 4c. How do you plan to accommodate the ruling of the DC
Circuit in the Association of Battery Recyclers case?
Response. The Association of Battery Recyclers v. U.S. EPA (ABR)
decision vacated a portion of an 1998 EPA rule that expanded EPA's
jurisdiction over certain types of mineral processing materials stored
on the land prior to being reclaimed in production processes.
Currently, EPA is finalizing a rule codifying the mineral processing
vacatur, as directed in the ABR Decision. In the final rule preamble,
EPA also intends to discuss plans for a future rulemaking to revise the
definition of solid waste. As discussed above (e.g., XLs), EPA is
engaged in a number of efforts to remove or eliminate regulatory
disincentives for recycling while maintaining protection of human
health and the environment. ABR provides an opportunity to revise EPA's
approach to jurisdiction over recycling in a way that will further
promote recycling of hazardous secondary materials. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with this committee in an effort to implement
the ABR decision.
Question 4d. Will these issues be a priority to you?
Response. Yes, I intend to make these issues a priority.
Question 5. Many of the Office of Solid Waste's regulations have a
serious impact on small businesses. As Ranking Member on the Small
Business Committee, I am always concerned about how EPA handles their
obligation to take into account small business concerns during
rulemakings under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA), or what I call the Red Tape Reduction Act. Under this
law, EPA is required to convene panels to take comments from small
businesses that will be affected by a regulation while the regulation
is still in draft form. Although this provision has proven to help EPA
formulate more effective and narrowly tailored regulations without
sacrificing the objective or the benefits to public health of the
regulation, there have been rulemakings where EPA did not do as much as
I believed they should.
Question 5a. If confirmed, will you vigorously pursue exploration
of small business concerns during rulemakings, as well as, ensure your
office's full compliance with SBREFA?
Response. Yes, I will vigorously explore small business concerns
during rulemakings, and ensure full compliance with SBREFA. All of
OSWER's programs are increasingly reaching out to all stakeholders,
including small businesses, to get their input early in the regulatory
development process. Many issues can be resolved during this early
participation, which can take place through web-based interactive
dialogs and other innovative methods of reaching specific stakeholders,
and face-to-face meetings and discussions. OSWER will also continue
active participation and support of the Deputy Administrator's
quarterly meetings with Small Business Trade Association Executives.
These roundtable meetings are an important channel of communication for
the Agency to clarify regulatory interpretations and obtain early input
on activities that impact small businesses.
______
Responses of Marianne Lamont Horinko to Additional Questions from
Senator Boxer
energy technology and engineering center (etec)/santa susana field
laboratory
Question 1. EPA has previously taken the position that Department
of Energy nuclear facilities such as ETEC at the Santa Susan Field
Laboratory in California are required to clean up contaminated sites to
levels consistent with EPA's CERCLA guidance (to a one in a million
lifetime cancer risk, unless that level cannot be achieved). EPA may
allow a greater risk of up to one in ten thousand, but only if
specified criteria are met.
Recently, EPA has reportedly reversed its position, stating that
DOE is only required to clean up radio-nuclides at the ETEC site under
the far more lax guidance in the Atomic Energy Act.
Can you provide assurance that recent reports are erroneous and
that EPA CERCLA guidelines, cleanup levels, and methodology will be
strictly applied at the ETEC site?
Response. Although DOE is using its own authorities under the AEA
to clean up radionuclides at the Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL), DOE has
publicly agreed to achieving cleanup levels consistent with CERCLA. As
you may be aware, EPA has been providing an independent ``oversight''
role to guide the DOE's activities at SSFL. EPA's Draft Scoping
Document, which has been submitted to the DOE for its review, proposes
a conceptual survey plan which will provide for cleanup level
determinations consistent with CERCLA. The CERCLA cleanup standard is
referenced as a range of 10-6 to 10-4 lifetime cancer risk, where the
one-in-a-million risk level is used as a point-of-departure for
beginning the determination of site-specific acceptable cleanup levels.
If confirmed, I will work closely with this committee to ensure that
this cleanup is consistent with CERCLA.
Question 2. EPA has also assured me that EPA's Las Vegas radiation
laboratory would conduct a comprehensive independent radiation survey
of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. I was also assured that a broad
range of radio-nuclides would be included and that a contractor would
not be utilized.
Can you ensure that past commitments will be honored regarding the
radiation survey at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory?
Response. Yes, commitments will be honored regarding the
radiological survey at the SSFL. The radiological survey at SSFL Area
IV will be conducted by an EPA contractor under direct and extensive
contract oversight by EPA's Radiation and Indoor Air Environments Lab
at Las Vegas, NV. This arrangement is typically how EPA conducts
investigations at large and complex sites. The survey in this case will
be comprehensive, addressing all radionuclides that may have been used
or generated at the site. Based on the magnitude and complexity of the
proposed survey, EPA has significantly increased its resources directed
to this project, especially from within the Lab.
______
Responses of Marianne Lamont Horinko to Additional Questions from
Senator Corzine
Question 1. As you know, Resources For the Future recently
completed a major report on Superfund's future for Congress. One of the
report's major conclusions was that a ramp-down of the Superfund
program is not imminent. The experience of New Jersey in recent years
seems to bear this out, in that a handful of New Jersey sites have been
added to the NPL each year. As a general question, how do you view the
future of the Superfund program and what do you hope to accomplish as
Assistant Administrator?
Response. I believe the Superfund program has an important role in
addressing the nations worst hazardous waste sites and in responding to
emergency situations. If confirmed, my key themes will be innovation,
information sharing, and partnerships. These concepts will be applied
to the Superfund program through expanding Brownfields, better
involving the community in such things as future land use, and ensuring
better access to environmental information. I also pledge to give
counter-terrorism activities the highest priority. I am open to new
ideas, and would welcome this committee's input as well.
Question 2. As you know, New Jersey has more Superfund sites than
any other State in the natin. As of May of this year, 84 of New
Jersey's 111 NPL sites were not yet cleaned up to the ``construction
complete'' stage. So I was concerned to see that the fiscal year 1902
budget request reduced the fiscal year 1902 national target for
cleanups to 65. This is well below the 85 cleanups per year that have
been accomplished in the last 4 years; it is also below last year's
target of 75. When I asked Administrator Whitman about this issue, she
explained that the reduced target is due to increased cleanup costs at
remaining sites. What is your understanding of why this target has been
reduced? Are more funds needed to maintain the pace of cleanups?
Response. I agree with Administrator Whitman's explanation. A key
factor affecting the number of construction completions is that many of
the sites with remaining work tend to be more complex, on average, than
those already completed. Nonetheless, the Agency is committed to and
will continue to work at these and other Superfund sites to ensure that
they are cleaned up as quickly as possible. If confirmed, I plan to
engage this committee very closely on this effort.
Question 3. In light of the dwindling balance of the trust fund,
what is your view of the importance of Superfund cost recovery
activities?
Response. Cost recovery is obviously very important to the
Superfund program. Since its inception, EPA has achieved nearly $7 in
private party cleanup commitments and cost recovery for every $1 spent
on enforcement. There have been over $3.1 billion in cost recovery
settlements alone. It is important to continue aggressive cost recovery
efforts. I intend to work closely with EPA's enforcement program to not
only preserve the dwindling trust fund balance, but to reinforce EPA's
enforcement first policy.
______
Responses of Marianne Lamont Horinko to Additional Questions from
Senator Clinton
Question 1. If confirmed, will you work closely with me and other
members of the New York delegation with respect to the Agency's
emergency response efforts associated with the horrific terrorist
attack on the World Trade Center in New York City on September11, 2001?
Response. See answer to number 2.
Question 2. Will you work to ensure that all necessary and
appropriate measures are being taken with regard to response efforts at
the World Trade Center site to protect human health and the
environment?
Responses to Questions 1 and 2. If confirmed, I will continue to
work closely with you and the New York delegation as EPA addresses the
effects of the September 11 attacks. I join with all Americans in
honoring the heroic efforts of New York emergency responders. Their
personal dedication and professional expertise deserve every word of
praise that has been spoken in their behalf. I also deeply appreciate
and am proud of the support provided by EPA's emergency response
personnel in Region 2. EPA has been coordinating with State, Federal,
and local authorities to provide expertise on cleanup methods for
hazardous materials, as well as to detect whether any contaminants are
found in ambient air quality monitoring, sampling of drinking water
sources and sampling of runoff near the disaster sites. I participate
in daily telephone calls with Governor Whitman and other EPA
Headquarters and Regional personnel to support and coordinate the
responses in New York and Washington. I pledge to work with you and the
New York delegation to continue EPA's support.
Question 3. Will you work with the delegation and the committee to
ensure that we learn from this experience and make any necessary and
appropriate changes to the Agency's emergency response capabilities?
Response. Learning all we can from this tragedy will be a high
priority of mine. EPA will perform a complete lessons learned
assessment of its operations, and will share that information with both
the New York delegation and the committee. EPA has already conducted a
preliminary needs assessment of the counter-terrorism preparedness and
response program. OMB is reviewing those findings. In the meantime, I
assure you that EPA and the Administration are committed to a strong
readiness capability that will protect all U.S. citizens, including
EPA's own emergency responders, and the environment.
__________
Statement of Harold Craig Manson, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith, members of the committee, I am honored
and humbled to appear before you as the President's nominee to be
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
seeking your confirmation vote. I am deeply grateful for the confidence
in me shown by the President and Secretary Norton. I also thank
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman for her support.
I appreciate that the committee has taken time to hold this hearing
in a time of great national crisis. As you know, the Department of the
Interior's personnel, including the U.S. Park Police and the law
enforcement elements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others
have played vital roles in responding to the current crisis. Most
regrettably, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee, Richard
Guadagno, lost his life in the crash of the jet in Pennsylvania. Mr.
Guadagno was the refuge manager of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife
Refuge in my home State of California. He was highly regarded by all
who knew him and he embodied the very best attributes of the talented
people in both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service.
I am a descendant of Africans, Europeans, and Native Americans.
Born in Missouri, gateway to the west, I grew up principally in New
Mexico and California, where I now reside. I've spent 42 of the last 47
years living in the western United States, including, in addition to
New Mexico and California, Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota.
I received my undergraduate education at the United States Air
Force Academy. Following my graduation from the Academy, I served 2
years as a Minuteman missile launch officer. The Air Force then sent me
to law school and I received my law degree at the University of the
Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. I served in various Air
Force judge advocate assignments in the United States and overseas,
including 4 years on the Air Force Academy faculty, in the Department
of Law. During my faculty tour, I was assigned, with several other
faculty members, to report to the Secretary of the Air Force concerning
the state of Air Force compliance with environmental laws on its
overseas bases.
After leaving active duty in 1989, I practiced law with a major
Sacramento law firm for 3 years. I was then appointed by California
Governor Pete Wilson to the newly created position of General Counsel
of the California Department of Fish and Game. I held that position for
5 years, after which the Governor appointed me to be a judge. I have
served on the Superior Court in Sacramento since 1998. I've also been
on the faculty of McGeorge School of Law since 1992. I continue my
military service in the Air National Guard, with the current rank of
colonel.
Apart from unmitigated enthusiasm for I what think is the best job
in Washington, I offer my experience in natural resources law and
policy, an ability to build consensus across diverse interest groups,
and a judicial approach to decisionmaking.
During my tenure with California's Department of Fish and Game, we
conserved hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat in an
innovative multiple species planning program in Southern California's
coastal sage scrub habitat. That habitat, home to hundreds of
potentially at-risk plant and animal species, stretches across the five
counties in which California's most intensive growth and development
pressures exist. Our natural communities conservation program had
bipartisan support as well as the support of landowners, resource
users, local governments and environmental interest groups. As to the
largest of the plans under this program, the San Diego Multiple Species
Conservation Plan, the Los Angeles Times reported on March 19, 1997:
``A committee composed mainly of local businesses, including Bank
of America and the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce, concluded
>the cost to the public is modest given the benefits.' ``
In addition to our large scale multiple species plans, during my
tenure at California Fish and Game, we pioneered habitat conservation
plans, HCPs, using our State Endangered Species Act. At one point
during the 1990's, we had more HCPs in the State of California under
State law than existed in the entire rest of the country under Federal
law.
Based on the scientific judgments of our biologists, each of our
State HCPs involved the cooperation of landowners. Again, hundreds of
thousands of acres of habitat were conserved while allowing economic
activities to proceed.
I have spent most of my adult life in public service. In all of
that time, I have had no prouder moment than in 1997 when Governor Pete
Wilson signed into law amendments to the California Endangered Species
Act. I had been entrusted with the Wilson administration's negotiating
portfolio on that legislation. We worked diligently for 4 years to
build a consensus among environmental groups, landowners, local
governments, and agricultural interests. We listened to everybody.
Eventually, our legislation, conceived by a Republican administration,
was introduced by three Democratic State legislators and won bipartisan
passage. The legislation placed into the California Endangered Species
Act the concepts of landowner incentives and requirements for effective
species recovery programs. The legislation also provided for voluntary,
locally designed programs to conserve habitat while allowing
agricultural activities to proceed without the counterproductive
effects of a strict regulatory approach.
I mention my experiences in California to illustrate my commitment
to work through environmental and natural resource public policy issues
on a consensus basis whenever possible. In that regard, I am completely
committed to what Secretary Norton describes as the ``4 C's'':
communication, consultation, and cooperation, all in the service of
conservation. I strongly support Secretary Norton's philosophy that the
Federal Government must be a partner to State and local governments,
individuals and non-governmental organizations affected by or
interested in natural resource policy.
If I am confirmed, I will also apply my judicial experience to the
issues involving our natural resources and national parks. First, every
interested party will get a fair hearing, environmental interest
groups, landowners, farmers, ranchers, State and local government,
historic preservation interests, and sportsmen. Second, any decisions I
make or recommendations I give to the Secretary will be based on the
weight of the evidence. I agree with the view expressed by both the
President and Secretary Norton that our natural resources public
policies must be informed by sound science.
Earlier, I described the position of Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks as the best job in Washington. One of the aspects of
the job I most look forward to, if I am confirmed, is the opportunity
to work with the talented and dedicated employees of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. I have great respect
for these professionals who ensure the preservation of America's
greatest treasures every day.
Mr. Chairman, I love our great country and the physical resources
with which we have been blessed. If confirmed, I will do my best to see
that our resources remain a perpetual source of enjoyment for the
American people.
I'll be pleased to answer any questions.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Harold Craig Manson to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is moving ahead
with long overdue construction of a headquarters building and education
center. The potential educational role of this refuge has never been
realized. There is currently a significant shortfall in the funds
needed to construct a facility that can meet this need. What do you see
as the role of the USFWS in education and outreach, and bow can that be
met at the Missisquoi Refuge?
Response. I am advised that the facilities to be constructed at the
Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge will include a new headquarters,
maintenance facility and visitor contact station with exhibit space and
a multi-purpose room to accommodate some of the educational needs of
the community in which the refuge is located. The project will replace
existing facilities which have exceeded their useful life and are not
suitable for repair.
I understand the significant role that national wildlife refuges in
the Northeastern United States can play in educating the public about
the important fish and wildlife resources that the Service and the
Department are charged with protecting and managing. It is my
understanding that the Missisquoi Refuge will be better positioned to
reach interested citizens and communicate the Service's mission when
the project is completed.
The Secretary has targeted improved maintenance of facilities on
public lands as a priority. I am advised that replacement of these
facilities will help to reduce the maintenance backlog in the National
Wildlife Refuge System. If confirmed, I will discuss the funding
situation for this facility with Service officials and report back to
you.
Question 2. The USFWS has a relatively new 26,000-acre refuge in
Northeast Vermont, part of the Conte National Wildlife Refuge. The
Refuge Manager is doing a great job, but residents of this area are not
yet fully comfortable with the Federal Government as a large landowner.
What would be your approach to working with the State and local
partners to assure that the refuge is accepted as part of the
community?
Response. I understand that the establishment of the Nulhegan Basin
Division of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge was a
collaborative effort between the State of Vermont, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; private foundations, and nongovernment conservation
groups. This effort resulted in the protection of over 133,000
contiguous acres of former timber company land, with only about 20
percent in Federal ownership as the Refuge. A large portion of the area
remains in private ownership as a working forest and the State of
Vermont acquired about 22,000 acres of the property.
I am advised that, since the Refuge was established, the State, the
Service, local citizens and groups have worked together to inventory
and identify the resources present on both areas. In addition, the
Service informs me that in January of 2002, a cooperative visitor
services plan, covering the State and the Refuge land, will be released
for public review. This plan will outline the many ways in which
citizens can continue to enjoy the resources of the area, and will
hopefully ease concerns over the possible effects of the refuge on
public use of the land.
As I noted in my statement to the committee, I am fully committed
to communication, consultation and cooperation as the means of
conducting our business. If confirmed, I will encourage expanded
efforts at all three elements by the Refuge staff.
Question 3. There are now some Atlantic salmon returning to Vermont
streams, after being absent for more than a century. The numbers are
still not large and it has taken a lot of time and money to get this
far. The overall quality of the Connecticut River and other species has
been helped in the meantime. The White River National Fish Hatchery in
Vermont has been a lynchpin, although the facility is in need of
significant upgrades. What is your position concerning USFWS support
for Connecticut River salmon restoration?
Response. I am very pleased to hear that the efforts expended so
far on the Connecticut River Atlantic salmon restoration program are
showing positive and exciting results. From what I have heard, the
Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission is an excellent model of
the type of State, Federal and private partnership we need throughout
the Nation for more effective conservation efforts.
While I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the
details of the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget, the salmon
restoration program certainly appears to be the sort of effort which
needs our support.
Question 4. The Pittsfield National Fish Hatchery supplies
salmonids to Lake Champlain and the Connecticut River. These stockings
are critical to maintain populations while threats such as Sea Lampreys
are controlled. The hatchery is in need of significant maintenance
work, some of which is under way as a result of funding I secured last
year, but the reprogramming of funds to complete the job from within
the Region has not gone smoothly. How would you ensure that this
important Federal facility can be improved as needed to continue its
mission?
Response. While, as previously indicated, I have not yet bad an
opportunity to become fully familiar with agency budgets, I am advised
that there are major maintenance backlogs throughout the National Fish
Hatchery and National Wildlife Refuge Systems, as well the better-known
backlog confronting the National Park Service. If confirmed, I will be
deeply involved in addressing these issues, and will seek to do so
through a long-term, systematic approach to reducing all these
backlogs. I would also be glad to look into the status of the
reprogramming request for the Pittsfield hatchery and report back to
you.
Question 5. The USFWS has been a very strong partner with local
watershed groups, State agencies and the U.S. Forest Service in
repairing damaged stream banks and restoring Vermont Rivers to a
healthy condition. The amount of local support and funding leveraged by
the leadership of the USFWS makes this one of our most valuable
programs. Do you see this type of partnership as important and how
would you support it?
Response. Yes, I consider the development of partnerships and
cooperative efforts as the most effective approach to conserving our
natural resources, The cooperation and participation of Federal, State
and local agencies, organizations and individual citizens generally
develops and effectively implements far more innovative and cost-
effective solutions to natural resource problems than uniform direction
from Washington. A cooperative approach to stream and river restoration
is particularly important due to the physical complexity of waterways,
which run through multiple jurisdictions and ownerships and serve
multiple functions such as transportation, water supply, fish habitat
and recreational uses.
I have been advised that the Service's Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program uses this approach across the Nation and that the
program has been very successful. The program works with private
landowners who wish to voluntarily restore fish and wildlife habitat by
providing them with restoration advice, assistance during project
construction, and funding support. If confirmed, I will promote this
and other Service programs that work cooperatively with citizens and
other agencies and organizations.
Question 6. In the Northeast, the Fish and Wildlife Service is
involved in several large natural resource restoration projects
involving comprehensive partnerships in Rhode Island, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Maine and Connecticut. Mr. Manson, what are your plans to
increase agency support to these partnership activities in the
Northeast?
Response. As I stated in my response to the previous question, I
believe these types of cooperative efforts are by far the most
effective approach to conservation, and I strongly support them. It is
my understanding that many of these particular efforts are being
coordinated through the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge. It is
most encouraging for me to see that multiple elements of the Fish and
Wildlife Service have adopted this approach, and if confirmed, I will
strongly support the continuation of such cooperative efforts.
Question 7. How will you help increase agency support for Fish and
Wildlife Service activities in the Northeast?
Response. As you know, I am currently most familiar with Fish and
Wildlife Service activities in California. If confirmed, I will make it
a high priority to become fully conversant with the Service's
activities throughout the Nation, and specifically in the Northeastern
States. I will make an early visit to the Northeast. It appears that
the Service has a number of highly successful programs there. It is my
belief that we should encourage and reward success.
______
Responses of Harold Craig Manson to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. It's pretty clear to me that the Fish and Wildlife
Service is operating under a handicap in my State, and that's a
staffing and funding handicap. It's my understanding that the Service
in Montana has recently done its best to catch up on a substantial
backlog of biological opinions, not from a lack of trying, but from a
lack of biologists and resources. This problem seriously interferes
with the business of my State, and certainly doesn't further the
interests of endangered and threatened species;
We have only about 19 biologists doing consultation work in
Montana. I think if you look into this issue, and I ask that you do,
you'll find that our neighboring States such as Washington and Oregon
have considerably more biologists, not only in the State as a whole,
but per national forest. Montana has several of the same issues to deal
with as those States. Not only that, but we have several endangered and
threatened species that cover very large territories. This means that
lots of projects all over the State are impacted by the need to consult
with the Fish and Wildlife Service before those projects can go
forward. The Service must have the resources necessary to allow these
projects to move forward efficiently in a reasonable amount of time,
with due consideration for the protection of endangered and threatened
species.
I have raised this issue with the Administration before. The
Assistant Secretary of Interior, Lynn Scarlett, wrote to me, saying she
agreed this problem needed further investigation at Interior. I ask
that you yourself look into this, and talk to Ms. Scarlett. And please,
come to Montana, visit the biologists on the ground, compare their
situation to that of Service employees in other States, visit our many
fish hatcheries and wildlife refuges. Get a feel for what a very
limited staff is struggling to deal with. I can't tell you how
important this issue is to Montana. Will you commit to helping me solve
this problem?
Response. Yes. If confirmed, I will consult with Assistant
Secretary Scarlett and the Fish and Wildlife Service on this issue as a
high priority, and report back to you. I will also travel to Montana
for an on-the-ground orientation as soon as practicable.
Question 2. I have worked long and hard with other members of
Montana's congressional delegation to bring the Fort Peck
Interpretative and Visitor Center to Montana. The Interpretative Center
will remain a part of Fort Peck Dam, under the jurisdiction of the Army
Corps of Engineers. The Visitor Center will be part of the CM Russell
National Wildlife Refuge because it will contain interpretive exhibits
related to the refuge. This Important wildlife refuge has never bad a
visitor center. I was disappointed that the Service did not ask for any
funds to pool with the over $6 million already provided through the
Army Corps and other sources to help build the Visitors Center. I would
like to see the Service take some ownership of this project, because
it's important to the refuge and to local residents. And, the Service
is going to use the center. Could you look into this and see if there's
any way for the Service to participate in this project?
Response. If confirmed, I will certainly look into this situation.
I am advised that the bulk of the Fish and Wildlife Service
construction budget is currently directed to projects addressing
critical health and safety issues, including bridge, dam and seismic
safety measures.
______
Responses of Harold Craig Manson to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. Mr. Manson, given that the majority of listed
endangered and threatened species occur on private lands, we must be
very cognizant of the rights and concerns of private property owners,
especially when private land is included in critical habitat, Its my
understanding that as General Counsel of the California Department of
Fish and Game, you supported State legislation that prevented State
biologists from entering private land. While laws like this protect the
rights of property owners, it can impact on the ability of the
government to recover listed species. How do you suggest we strike the
delicate balance between private property rights and species
protection?
Also, do you believe that private landowners should be compensated
under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment if protecting listed
species on their land infringes on their rights to use the land as they
see fit?
Response. Federal, State and local government employees generally
have no right to enter private property without either the owners' or
occupants' permission or under circumstances when members of the
general public would also be able to do so. There are a number of
exceptions to this principle, primarily in law enforcement situations,
but none that would apply exclusively to the California or the Federal
Endangered Species Acts. Accordingly, the California legislation to
which you refer was not a question of restricting access previously
enjoyed by State employees, to the detriment of listed species, but
rather one of clarifying the existing legal situation for the State
employees and the public.
I fully and strongly support the Constitution's requirement that no
private property may be taken for public use without just compensation.
This is one of the keystones of our form of government. It is my
understanding that the Administration is committed to administering the
Endangered Species Act so that takings of private property do not
occur. If confirmed, I will do all that I can to ensure that the
program continues to operate in this fashion.
______
Responses of Harold Craig Manson to Additional Questions from Senator
Boxer
Question 1. The Klamath Basin has been called the ``Western
Everglades'' because of the great diversity and abundance of fish and
wildlife found there. The six national wildlife refuges in the basin
are among the most important in the entire National Wildlife Refuge
System. They are home to millions of migratory birds as well as a
sizable population of bald, eagles. Unfortunately, the Klamath Basin
suffers from a chronic shortage in water supply. Because of drought
conditions, this year proved particularly difficult and has raised
tough questions about how best to prioritize water use. In 1998, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a policy. for Tule Lake and
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges in California and Oregon that
prevents irrigation on commercial farmland on the refuges unless
sufficient water is available to sustain the refuges' marshes. Do you
support this policy which gives priority to the refuges' ecological
resources over commercial farming?
Response. I am advised that the 1998 compatibility determination is
still a draft and as such has not become policy. The Fish and Wildlife
Service is currently developing a new environmental assessment that
addresses this issue and will issue that document later this year for
public review and comment. I am further advised that this Environmental
Assessment develops alternatives that incorporate new ways for storing
and using irrigation water that will seek to minimize conflicts between
commercial fanning and wildlife habitat objectives.
As you know, the water uses and priorities in the Klamath Basin are
very complex. It is my understanding that the curtailment of commercial
farming on the refuge lease lands may not necessarily free up that
water for use in refuge wetlands, due to legal priorities for
endangered species, tribal trust needs and nonrefuge agriculture. For
example, irrigation for commercial farmland was drastically reduced
this past summer to avoid jeopardy to endangered species.
This issue is clearly one of the very highest priorities facing the
Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service. I believe my prior
experience, particularly in negotiating the settlement to the Owens
Valley water litigation, could be quite applicable here, and if
confirmed look forward to working with you, the other Members of the
California and Oregon delegations, and the stakeholders to resolve the
situation.
Question 2. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 set new requirements for the management of refuges. In response,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations establishing
procedures for determining what uses are compatible with the missions
of the refuge system and mission of each individual refuge. What uses
do you deem incompatible with the mission of the national wildlife
refuge system?
Response. I have not yet had an opportunity to review the
Improvement Act and the Service's implementing regulations in detail.
However, I am advised by the Service that it is not possible to list
the types of uses that might be incompatible with the statutory mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as those are site specific
considerations made by individual refuge managers.
However, it is clear that Congress provided this layering of system
mission and individual refuge purpose with the compatibility standard
in order to ensure that wildlife and wildlife conservation come first
within the Refuge System. This provides a very protective standard.
If confirmed, I will be highly supportive of addressing
compatibility questions in accordance with the law.
Question 3. Recently, the National Park Service developed a
detailed plan for the future management of Yosemite National Park. The
plan was developed after considerable input from all of the affected
stakeholders and over 10,000 members of the public submitted comments
to the agency. Central to this plan is the notion that visitors to the
park should be encouraged to leave their personal vehicles outside the
park and travel through the park on a park transit system. As Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks you will have responsibility
for the National Park Service. In this role, will you actively support
implementation of the. new Yosemite Valley Management Plan?
Response. I will work closely with the Director of the National
Park Service to become familiar with the Yosemite Valley Plan and move
forward with the appropriate restoration of Yosemite Valley, while
welcoming people to enjoy the park and its resources. I also will work
to ensure that the future management of the park is accomplished in
partnership with local jurisdictions and others.
Question 4. The Bush Administration has indicated its clear intent
to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development.
In the past, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) biologists have
indicated that oil and gas development would do irreparable harm to the
wildlife species that depend upon this refuge. As Assistant Secretary
of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks it will be your duty to ensure that the
concerns of wildlife species are addressed before approval is given to
enter a national wildlife refuge. How will you ensure that there is an
unbiased assessment of the impacts that oil and gas exploration will
have on the Arctic Refuge's irreplaceable wildlife species?
Response. I am familiar with the concerns about the impacts of oil
and gas exploration on the wildlife resources of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. I have been advised that a great deal of study of the
fish, wildlife, and habitats of the Refuge's coastal plain has' been
conducted by biologists with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey. Many
of those studies provided the scientific basis for the 1987 Report and
Recommendations to the Congress of the United States and Final
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement was based. Additionally,
some research and monitoring has been conducted since 1987 by the
Service and BRD
I am further advised that most of the studies completed to date
have been necessarily broad-based. However, if Congress authorizes oil
exploration and production in the 1002 Area, there will be the need for
further site-specific studies to ensure that these activities are
undertaken in an environmentally sound manner. The Fish and Wildlife
Service is this Nation's preeminent agency with expertise in management
of lands for fish, wildlife and plants. If confirmed, and if Congress
acts to open the 1002 Area, I will expect biologists with the Service
and BRD to provide the sound science upon which the. Department can
base its decisions on where and under what conditions to permit
specific activities.
Question 5. While at the California Department of Fish and Game,
you supported State legislation would have prevented State biologists
from entering private land. As you know, the Federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA) applies to both public and private lands, Thus, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service is required to enforce the ESA on both public and
private lands. As Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, will
you carry out your statutory duties to apply the ESA on both public and
private lands?
Response. If confirmed, I will do so without reservation. The
California legislation to which you refer was not a question of
restricting access previously enjoyed by State employees, to the
detriment of listed species, but rather one of clarifying the existing
legal situation for the State employees and the public. Additionally, I
believe we need to involve private landowners in recovery planning and
solving complex ESA issues.
Question 6. There are now well over 1,000 species that have been
federally recognized as threatened or endangered species. The
Endangered Species Act compels the Secretary of Interior to identify
habitat that is critical to the recovery of those species and protect
that habitat from further degradation. Many have alleged that our
limited success in recovering species is due to our failure to protect
the habitat upon which those species depend. In States like California,
where there are a large number of listed species and a great deal of
habitat that has been identified as ``critical habitat,'' protection of
this habitat has been limited. How would you interpret the Interior
Department's obligations to protect and conserve the critical habitat
of these threatened and endangered species? If you favor limited
protection for critical habitat, what alternatives do you offer for
fulfilling Interior's obligations to recover listed species?
Response. The Endangered Species Act requires that critical habitat
be designated at the time a species is listed ``to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable''. The ESA works to protect critical habitat
through the Section 7 consultation process. The Secretary of the
Interior's responsibility is to consult with Federal agencies if their
actions may serve to jeopardize endangered species or result in adverse
modification of their critical habitat.
If confirmed, I will make it a priority to ensure that the ESA is
fully complied with.
At the same time, I would hope that, if given an opportunity to
work with you and other interested parties on the ESA, we could
increase our focus on efforts to recover species so that they could be
delisted. This perhaps could involve continued pursuit of the approach
taken in legislation in prior Congresses, in which I was involved on
behalf of the Western Governors Association, to make critical habitat
designation a part of the recovery process, where it could be
designated if a recovery plan found it was needed. There may well be
other approaches which also merit consideration. However, absent such a
change in the law, if confirmed I will ensure that the law is carried
out as it stands.
Question 7. In the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Bush
Administration asked for $8.5 million for the U.S, Fish and Wildlife
Service's listing and critical habitat designation budget. This request
is far below the funding level that the agency has indicated it needs
to sufficiently address the backlog of species that await listing
decisions and critical habitat designations. Indeed, in a variety of
court cases the USFWS has asserted that is should be exempt from its
legal obligations to list and designate critical habitat because the
agency lacks adequate funding, Clearly more funding is needed to
address this problem. What will you do to ensure that the President's
fiscal year 2003 budget request for the USFWS includes a credible
amount of funding for listing and critical habitat designation?
Response. I appreciate your concerns regarding the Service's
listing and critical habitat designation budget. I am advised that the
Bush Administration's 2002 budget request for listing represented a 15
percent increase over the 2001 amount requested by the prior
Administration, and a 34 percent increase over the amount actually
appropriated for listing in fiscal year 2001.
In fashioning a 2003 request, I believe the Administration will
balance the needs of the Endangered Species program, the Service, and
the Department of the Interior with the many other demands and
priorities for increased Federal funding, including other aspects of
the Endangered Species Act itself As you are aware, there are
significant documented needs and backlogs in many Service and
Departmental programs. If confirmed, and in time to participate in the
development of this request, which I am advised is already well
advanced, I will do my best to ensure that funding is requested based
on documented needs consistent with the President's priorities.
Question 8. The press has reported of your involvement in a
whistleblower case concerning a biologist who was allegedly pressured
to approve an illegal permit. Government agencies are entrusted by the
public to fully and fairly implement laws. Political pressures on
agency staff to break the law, misrepresent an issue, withhold
information, etc. is unacceptable. As Assistant Secretary of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, what will you do to ensure that agency staff are
not pressured to base policy decisions on political pressure? What will
you do to ensure that any staff who are pressured have an opportunity
to disclose this information?
Response. My involvement in the case you referenced was limited to
my role as a lawyer defending the California Department of Fish and
Game and its management in legal actions arising from the alleged
incident.
I agree with you that it is unacceptable to subject agency staff to
political pressures to break the law, misrepresent an issue, withhold
information or otherwise act in a manner that is illegal or unethical.
I believe that the best decisions are based on having the best
information, and if confirmed I would be vigilant in ensuring that
agency staff contribute information in a work environment that values
good science and accurate information for the formulation of policy
decisions.
__________
Statement of Paul Michael Parker, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.
It is a great honor and privilege to appear before this committee as
the nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
I am very grateful to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Secretary of the Army for the trust and confidence that-they-have
placed in me. If confirmed, I pledge that I will work as hard as I
possibly can to serve the soldiers, civilians, and families that make
the United States Army the most powerful and professional army in the
world.
The Corps of Engineers has a proud history stretching back to the
beginning of the country. Over the years the Corps has evolved to
emphasize its major civil works responsibilities of today: conservation
and development of the nation's water resources, which includes flood
control, navigation, shore protection, and environmental restoration.
All of these tasks are important; all are complex and demanding; and
all require significant resources. With competing demands for limited
dollars, fulfilling these requirements becomes more and more
challenging; however, I am committed that should I be confirmed,
environmental considerations will remain a key factor in determining
our Civil Works stance for the nation. The dedicated and able staff of
military and civilian employees who make up the Corps of Engineers has
risen to every challenge in the past and I'm sure will continue to
carry out their responsibilities to the people of this country in these
vital areas.
In the last week, you can see the value of the Corps to this nation
and the dedication of its people as we recover from the recent
tragedies at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. The Corps is
heavily involved in determining structural integrity and debris
management in both locations and continue to serve as the nation's
premier engineers during this time of crisis. Should I be confirmed, I
will be proud to work alongside these ultimate professionals.
In the 10 years during which I had the honor of representing the
Fourth District of Mississippi in the U.S. House of Representatives, I
applied my commitment to finding practical, realistic solutions to
problems and issues of importance to my constituents. Having served on
various House committees which deal with a range of issues I can expect
to face as the Assistant Secretary, I understand both the Civil Works
and military programs aspects of the Corps of Engineers and appreciate
the challenges. facing the Corps.
Should I be confirmed, I look forward to serving with the Army and
the Corps during this landmark era of change and transformation. I look
forward to serving with the Army team of Active, Reserve, and National
Guard soldiers who distinguish themselves every day by their dedication
and hard work. I am prepared to undertake the important
responsibilities of this post and am enthusiastic about the
opportunities it presents to me to continue to serve this great
country. I am committed to working closely with and consulting with the
various stakeholders in the ongoing Corps projects, including the
Members of Congress who represent the American people. Mr. Chairman, if
confirmed, I look forward to a strong working relationship with you and
this committee. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this
time. Thank you.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker to Additional Questions from
Senator Smith
Question 1. As you are well aware, the Army Corps Civil Works
Program faces a construction backlog of $40 billion in unfunded, but
authorized projects. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
is currently on schedule to report the next biennial Water Resources
Development Act in the year 2002. While the Appropriations Committees
have adhered to a ``no new starts'' policy, this seems to unfairly
penalize otherwise meritorious projects. What do you recommend the
Congress do to fairly address both the massive construction backlog and
the backlog on Operations and Maintenance?
Response. The construction backlog of the Civil Works Program of
the Corps of Engineers is real and needs to be addressed. My intention,
if confirmed, is to work within the Administration and with Congress to
assure that adequate funding is available to address the construction
and maintenance backlogs. The Civil Works Program of the Corps of
Engineers is a direct contributor to the economic vitality of this
country and investing in water infrastructure is a direct way to
contribute to the economic vitality and therefore, national security of
this country. If confirmed, I will work directly with the Corps of
Engineers to review the backlog of currently authorized projects to
determine whether it remains in the national interest to pursue those
projects. In addition, I will place a very high priority on reducing
the Civil Works maintenance backlog.
Question 2. In November of 2000, then-Assistant Secretary Joseph
Westphal and Chief of Engineers General Robert Flowers signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) outlining the distribution of
responsibilities and reporting authority between the two positions. Is
it your intent to honor this MOA?
Response. Yes, I do. If confirmed, I will meet with the Chief of
Engineers at the earliest date possible to affirm this agreement.
Question 3. What measures do you recommend the Army Corps take to
avoid a recurrence of the situation encountered with the Upper
Mississippi River Navigation Study?
Response. It is my understanding that, subsequent to the Army
Inspector General report and a review by the National Research
Council's National Academy of Sciences, the Chief of Engineers put in
place a number of additional measures to receive and incorporate into
the planning process the views of other Federal agencies and non-
governmental entities with expertise needed for complex studies like
the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study. If I am confirmed, I will
work closely with the Chief of Engineers, with others in the
Administration and with Members of Congress to strengthen the Corps
planning process and the public's confidence in it.
Question 4. Do you consider environmental restoration to be a
primary mission of the Army Corps and will you support it to the same
extent you do the other missions of the Corps?
Response. Yes, I do. I am committed, if I am confirmed, to seeing
that the Corps continues to excel in environmental restoration. I
firmly believe that economic development and environmental restoration
need not be competing priorities. The most effective projects are those
that satisfy both critical objectives. The Civil Works program of the
Corps can truly improve the quality of life for all of our citizens
through economic prosperity, national security, and environmental
protection and restoration.
Question 5. As you may know, on January 15th, 2001, the Air Force
issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on redevelopment of Homestead AFB,
rejecting the plan to convert the base into a commercial airport and
instead approving a plan for mixed use development. The 700 acres of
land will be transferred to Miami-Dade County, which prefers the
airport alternative. If the county declines the surplus property, the
ROD stipulates that the Air Force will consider a request for the
property to be transferred instead to the Department of Interior.
Homestead AFB is located approximately 10 miles from Everglades
National Park and two miles from Biscayne National Park. Last year, the
Environment and Public Works Committee authorized an $8 billion
restoration effort in the Everglades. Included in this statute is a
Sense of the Congress that any redevelopment of the AFB be consistent
with restoration of the Everglades.
Question 6. What is your position regarding the disposal of
Homestead AFB?
Response. As I understand it, Hurricane Andrew had a significant
impact on Homestead Air Force Base, and the Air Force looked closely at
alternatives associated with its future. I am not familiar with the
details of those alternatives at this time. If confirmed, I will look
into the situation to ensure that any disposal or redevelopment
decisions are consistent with the principles in the Corps Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan and consult with the appropriate committees
of Congress before making any final decision.
Question 7. Do you think that any reforms are needed in the Corps
to restore the faith of the public and Congress in this agency?
Response. The Corps of Engineers has provided and continues to
provide this Nation with great service that is technically sound,
environmentally sensitive and responsive to the needs of the American
public, and I don't believe any fundamental changes are needed.
However, I do recognize that the Army must be open to opportunities to
improve the responsiveness of the Corps of Engineers in meeting
national needs and developing sound project recommendations. If I am
confirmed, I plan to actively examine the question of independent
review and other reforms, in consultation with the Chief of Engineers
and the National Academy of Sciences and, as appropriate, develop a
recommendation for consideration by the Congress.
Question 8. Mr. Parker, would you support updating the Principles
and Guidelines to reflect recent policy and social changes, such as the
inclusion of environmental restoration as a Federal purpose, and
advances in analytical techniques and technologies?
Response. I believe that the existing Principles and Guidelines
provide a sound basis for evaluating the economic and environmental
benefits and costs of proposed projects. It is important, however, that
as improved methods of evaluation are developed, the Government's
analysis can benefit from them. If I am confirmed, I will review the
existing Principles and Guidelines, with particularly attention to the
way they are implemented, as I assess whether or not they need to be
revised. Before any decisions are final in this matter, I will consult
with the Congress.
______
Responses of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker to Additional Questions from
Senator Baucus
Question 1. Mr. Parker, would you agree that it's high time that
the current Master Manual be changed? It's been around for decades upon
decades, and times and river conditions have changed.
Response. I agree that operating procedures for Civil Works
projects should reflect current conditions and priorities. The existing
Missouri River Master Manual is, as you state, one that has been in
place for many years. The Corps has been involved since 1989 in a
review of the current Master Manual. This has been and continues to be
a long process and will be one of my top priorities if I am confirmed.
Question 2. While the debate over changing the Master Manual has a
lot to do with endangered species, it also has a lot to do with the
recreation industry in my State and other upstream States. I'll be
blunt. We really feel we've been short-changed over the years as our
reservoirs are drained in the summer, particularly during dry years,
docks left high and dry, to support downstream interests. What is your
view on better balancing the needs of upstream recreation interests
with downstream demands, particularly during a drought?
Response. If confirmed, I will act on my commitment to consider the
water resource needs of the entire basin in completing the revision of
the Master Manual on the Missouri River. The alternatives under
consideration in the revised draft Environmental Impact Statement
include a conservation plan component for storage in the upper Missouri
reservoirs, which would provide more storage in drought conditions. The
completion of this process will provide the legal, scientific, and
engineering basis for any changes on balancing upstream recreation
interests with downstream demands.
Question 3. How do you think the Army Corps should respond to
Biological Opinions, in general?
Response. The Corps should and does give great deference to the
conclusions of Biological Opinions under the Endangered Species Act. I
believe that economic development and environmental restoration do not
need to be competing priorities. We must all work to ensure that we
avoid impacts to protected species or the critical habitats on which
they depend. If I am confirmed, I assure you that all of the actions
taken through the Civil Works program will be consistent with the law
and will use the coordination and decisionmaking processes provided for
in the law.
Question 4. If the Army Corps does not follow the recommendations
of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion in formulating
a Record of Decision on the Missouri River Master Manual, what do you
think will be the result of that decision?
Response. I am not familiar enough with the details of this
extremely complex issue to offer an opinion on the results of any
decision. However, you have my commitment that, if I am confirmed, I
will give this matter my fullest attention to ensure that, whatever the
decision, the outcome has been well thought out and all project
purposes and all of the interests in the river basin have been taken
fully into consideration. If confirmed, under my leadership the Corps
will always implement and follow the law.
Question 5. Can I count on your commitment to support the
development of the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery? I've asked for funding for
the Corps to get this project off the ground. There's tremendous
support for it in the local Corps and in Montana. It would be a huge
boon for recreation, the regional economy and endangered and threatened
species a win-win project.
Response. When Congress provides funding for a particular activity,
such as the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, you should be able to expect that
the Corps will vigorously apply the funding as appropriated by
Congress.
Question 6. Mr. Parker, I would just ask you to familiarize
yourself with the Yellowstone River cumulative impacts study, because
it is important that the Corps continue to involve the public in the
process. The Yellowstone means a lot to an awful lot of people.
Managing the river will always be controversial, and I want to be sure
that the Corps truly listens to local voices.
Response. You have my commitment that, if I am confirmed, I will
familiarize myself with not only the Yellowstone River study, but also
with other issues of interest to the residents of Montana.
Question 7. Will you come to Montana?
Response. Yes Senator, if confirmed, I would look forward to
visiting the State of Montana.
______
Responses of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker to Additional Questions from
Senator Wyden
Question 1. If you're confirmed as Assistant Secretary, what will
you do to prevent a rerun of this year's attempt to cut the Corps'
funding in the budget process?
Response. Senator, I am committed to working within the
Administration, as well as with Congress, to ensure that the
contributions of the Civil Works program to the Nation are understood
and that adequate resources are provided to efficiently and effectively
carry out the Civil Works responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers.
If confirmed, I intend to meet with senior Administration officials on
the challenges facing this country with respect to its water
infrastructure. The Administration and Congress need to work together
to assure that this program move forward effectively. I look forward to
the opportunity to lead this effort.
Question 2. An issue of particular concern to Oregon ports is
keeping the Northwest hopper dredges available to keep our navigation
channels and our ports open for business. The Northwest ports are not
convinced that the private dredge industry has the capability to meet
the region's dredging needs in a timely and cost effective way. Our
ports want the Corps dredges maintained to ensure safe navigation. What
commitments can you make that the Corps dredges will be available to do
the work when they're needed?
Response. I am committed to ensuring safe commercial navigation of
channels and harbors in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere in the
country with maintenance that is cost effective and efficient and that
adequate hopper dredging capacity is available to respond to the needs
of Northwest ports. By striking a reasonable balance between industry
competition and Government-owned dredges, the Corps can meet this
commitment. If I am confirmed, I will work with the Corps to improve
actual dredging performance in the Northwest and will not allow the
Northwest to left without proper dredging capacity.
Question 3. At a March 1998 hearing before the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, you questioned the Corps' environmental
missions and in particular Columbia River Salmon Recovery efforts.
You've been quoted in the press as saying ``I never even thought they
were in the scope of the Corps' primary mission.'' My questions are:
Have your views changed since you made those comments and, if so, how?
Do you now support salmon restoration efforts in the Northwest as part
of the Corps' mission? And will you make salmon recovery funding a
priority?
Response. The comments were made in the context of a dialog in a
hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development that
arose because the Corps had reprogrammed money without consulting with
the Subcommittee. It was and is my opinion that the Corps should
consult with Congress before making any significant reprogramming
decisions. I recognize the importance of environmental restoration and
the Corps unique capability to provide it. Moreover, I support salmon
recovery efforts in the Northwest that represent cost effective
application of the best science and engineering available to this
complex ecosystem challenge. I am supportive of a broad coalition of
States, Tribes, and Federal agencies being involved in recovery efforts
and will support the Corps involvement in working within the Northwest
Region on this issue. I also recognize that the Bonneville Power
Administration provides for a substantial amount of funding for salmon
recovery, and I will continue to examine ways that this funding can
best be leveraged to support Corps activities. If I am confirmed, I
will look for ways to collaborate fully on salmon recovery efforts and
will support appropriate levels of funding to maintain Civil Works
projects to enhance fish survivability.
______
Responses of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker to Additional Questions from
Senator Graham
Question 1. There is a substantial backlog of projects that have
been authorized for the Corps to undertake. With current funding
levels, it seems unlikely that this backlog will ever be fully funded.
There are also several projects that seem to have very little economic
benefit and are also environmentally damaging. One example of this is
O&M dredging of the Apalachicola River. In an August 2000 letter to me,
then Assistant Secretary of the Army, Joseph Westphal wrote: ``Based
upon our review and conversation with the Corps, I believe that
maintaining navigation on the ACF is not economically justified or
environmentally defensible. With an economic return that has been
estimated at less that 40 cents for each dollar spent, it is difficult
to invest nearly $3 million each year on this project in light of the
Corps overall backlog for operations and maintenance. Further,
deauthorization of navigation would provide the Corps greater
flexibility to address important environmental issues along the
river.''
Do you support deauthorization of outdated, unjustifiable, or
unnecessary projects, such as the dredging of the Apalachicola River,
as a means of providing more flexibility to the Corps to address its
operations and maintenance backlog?
Response. I support the deauthorization of outdated, unjustifiable,
or unnecessary projects. A few years ago, Congress authorized a process
whereby if authorized projects had not received any fund for five
consecutive years, they would be eligible for deauthorization. I
believe we need to review this process to determine whether any changes
in this process are warranted. If I am confirmed, I look forward to
working with the Corps to assure that changes to the deauthorization
process are comprehensive, fair to all, and effective in identifying
those projects that are no longer in the national interest to pursue.
Question 2. When General Flowers was confirmed, I expressed
interest in establishing a process for a regular review of ongoing
Corps projects outside of the normal budget process. What is your
opinion of such a process?
Response. I agree with the importance of regular review of projects
and priorities. If confirmed, I will work with the Corps and the
Congress to examine their current procedures and identify other
opportunities for review.
Question 3. In recent years, the purpose of many Corps projects has
been environmental restoration. There are many such projects in
Florida, the largest being the restoration of America's Everglades.
There has been substantial concern over statements you made while in
Congress that question the primacy of environmental restoration to the
overall mission of the Corps. However, in response to advanced
questions posed by the Armed Services Committee, you stated: ``I
believe that projects and programs that protect and restore the natural
environment are a priority to the American people and a central mission
for the Corps of Engineers.''
What do you see as the primary mission of the Corps of Engineers
and how do environmental restoration projects, such as the restoration
of the Everglades, fit into that mission?
Response. Environmental restoration is most definitely a primary
mission of the Corps of Engineers. In recent years, it has been
accorded the same priority for resources as the other primary missions
of flood damage prevention and commercial navigation.
Question 4. Many Members of Congress have called for significant
reforms in the way the Army Corps conducts its business. One issue that
has come to my attention is the manner in which Corps district offices
interact with other parts of the government as well as with local
communities that are the beneficiaries of Corps projects. In handling
issues of importance to Florida, I have had many interactions with the
Jacksonville district office. They have been helpful, responsive, and
eager to provide me with the information I have needed.
Do you plan to conduct an internal review as to the way the
district offices interact with outside agencies and the people they
serve in order to help all the districts be as helpful and responsive
as the Jacksonville district?
Response. If confirmed, I will conduct an internal review of the
Corps to review its approaches in dealing with all of its constituents
and interested parties as we carry out the Army Civil Works program.
______
Responses of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker to Additional Questions from
Senator Boxer
buttonwillow/safety-kleen
Question 1. I understand the Corp of Engineers has not made any
progress since last October on removing Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) waste from the unlicensed Safety-Kleen
facility at Buttonwillow, California, and that no further studies are
being conducted. I am deeply disappointed by this continued inaction,
and that waste continues to sit in an unlicensed California dump when
other licensed facilities in other States express willingness to accept
it. Will you commit to working with me to remove the waste from my
State?
Response. I will work with you and your staff to become fully aware
of your concerns regarding the Corps use of the Safety-Kleen facility
in California for the disposal of FUSRAP materials. I am also quite
willing to work with you to define a potential solution to your
concerns.
missouri river master manual
Question 1. Under what circumstances do you believe that the
Endangered Species Committee provision of the Endangered Species Act
should be utilized?
Response. Senator, As I currently understand it, the Endangered
Species Committee process was established by the Endangered Species Act
to resolve situations when there is no reasonable and prudent
alternative that an agency can pursue to preclude jeopardy.
Question 2. Do you believe that the Endangered Species Committee
provision of the Endangered Species Act should be utilized to address
the revision of the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual?
Response. Senator, If I am confirmed, I have every expectation of
working toward a resolution that not only serves the congressionally
authorized project purposes provided by the 1944 Flood Control Act, but
also complies with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. If
confirmed, under my leadership, the Corps will follow the law.
Question 3. If a proposal is made to invoke the Endangered Species
Committee provision of the Endangered Species Act, will you commit to
inform this committee and interested senators at the earliest possible
opportunity, and to appear before this committee to provide an
explanation for such action?
Response. Yes, I will.
Question 4. The Fish and Wildlife Service has stated in a
Biological Opinion that the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual
must be revised to adopt a ``spring rise'' in order to comply with the
Endangered Species Act. How do you believe the Corps of Engineers
should respond to this direction?
Response. Senator, I understand that this is a complex,
controversial project. While I am not in a position to recommend at
this point how the Corps of Engineers should respond, you have my
commitment that, if I am confirmed, this matter will have my attention
and I will work with the Corps of Engineers, other agencies, and
Congress to identify a solution. Under my leadership if I am confirmed,
the Corps will implement the law.
Question 5. Do you believe that the Corps of Engineers can comply
with the Endangered Species Act without adopting a ``spring rise'' as
part of the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual?
Response. Senator, I am not in a position to comment at this point.
However, you have my commitment that, if confirmed, I will work to
resolve this matter in a manner that takes into consideration all of
the various interests in the region.
Question 6. Will you pledge to ensure that the Missouri River
Master Water Control Manual is revised in complete accordance with
Federal law, including the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Opinion?
Response. Yes, Senator, I will. We will make this and all of our
decisions within the framework of all applicable laws and regulations.
Question 7. The Corps of Engineers did not recommend a ``Preferred
Alternative'' in its Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement on
the revision of the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual. Do you
believe that this was an appropriate step for the Corps to take?
Response. Although I am not yet familiar with all of the
considerations that went into this decision, it is my hope that the
approach the Corps has taken will encourage a fair and balanced public
review of all alternative proposed changes to the Master Manual.
Question 8. The Corps of Engineers is scheduled to release a final
Environmental Impact Statement on the revision of the Missouri River
Master Water Control Manual in May of 2002. Do you intend to meet this
deadline?
Response. If I am confirmed, I have every intention of meeting this
deadline.
Question 9. Will you act to ensure that the Corps makes a
recommendation for managing the river by May of 2002 that fully
complies with Federal law and is based upon sound, scientific research,
including the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion?
Response. Yes, Senator, I will if confirmed. The considerable body
of knowledge gained thus far and expected over the coming months,
including the public comments, will be fully considered in making a
decision on a Preferred Alternative in 2002.
wetlands
Question 10. What are your views on the regulation and protection
of wetlands, and how do you intend to carry out your duties as the
nation's primary wetlands regulator?
Response. I believe that the Corps of Engineers plays a critical
role in protecting the aquatic environment, including wetlands, of this
Nation. The Corps has significantly strengthened the protection of
wetlands over the past 20 years through its regulatory program. If
confirmed, I intend to maintain the level of protection of the aquatic
environment, including the Nation's vital wetland resource, and even
improve on the protection that currently exists.
Question 11. The National Academy of Sciences has made disturbing
findings concerning the Corps' implementation of the wetlands
regulatory program. Among other things, the National Academy of
Sciences has found that ``support for regulatory decisionmaking is
inadequate'' and that the goal of no net loss of wetlands is not being
met for wetland functions by the mitigation program. If confirmed, what
steps would you take to address these problems?
Response.
If confirmed, I will strongly advocate a level of resources for the
Corps regulatory program that will ensure that proper decisions can be
made. I will work to ensure that the Corps focuses on important
ecological issues in its regulatory program and works with the States
and others to leverage Federal, State and local resources to a common
goal of increased protection of the aquatic environment. I am
concerned, as I know the Corps is concerned, with the results of the
National Academy of Sciences Report. The focus of the report is on the
need for the Corps to increase compliance with issued permits. I will
work with the Corps to improve compliance with issued permits and to
achieve the successful mitigation for wetland impacts, so that we can
ensure that the no overall net loss of wetlands goal is attained in the
program.
corps reform
Question 12. In your responses to questions posed by the Armed
Services Committee, you stated that in your view the Corps does not
need to make fundamental changes in the way it operates. What is your
view of the conclusions and recommendations regarding the Corps of
Engineers reached by the Army Inspector General, the National Academy
of Sciences, and the General Accounting Office in relation to the Upper
Mississippi locks and dams study?
Response.
The Corps processes have been evaluated by the national Academy of
Sciences and found to be basically sound. At this point I do not
believe fundamental changes are necessary. If confirmed, I will work
with the Corps to identify changes that would improve the service of
the Corps to the Nation.
Question 13. Would you support the establishment of a policy that
would allow major Corps decisions to be reviewed independently to
ensure that major projects are economically and environmentally sound?
Response. If I am confirmed, I will actively examine the question
of independent review, in consultation with the Chief of Engineers,
other within the executive branch, and the National Academy of
Sciences. Whatever improvements may be made must not appreciably
increase the cost or time of the already overly long planning process.
I will maintain close communications with Congress throughout this
process.
snake river salmon
Question 14. A Federal court found the four lower Snake River dams
in Eastern Washington to be in violation of the Clean Water Act and
ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as the operators of those
dams, to comply with the Act. It is my understanding that the Corps has
yet to comply with this order. How do you intend to comply with the
water quality standards and what is your timeframe for doing so?
Response. Senator, this is a very important issue and, if I am
confirmed, I commit to working closely with the Army General Counsel,
the Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, local and
State Governments, and the Congress on water quality issues impacting
the Snake River Dams.
Question 15. In December of 2000, the National Marine Fisheries
Service released a final Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia
River Power System. In that Biological Opinion, the National Marine
Fisheries Service states that the removal of the four lower Snake River
dams is the surest way to ensure the protection and recovery of salmon
in the Snake River. If removing the lower Snake River dams is
demonstrated to be the most cost-effective way to comply with both the
Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, would you support
removal of the dams?
Response. Senator, as I understand it, the National Marine
Fisheries Service's Biological Opinion put into place a broad and
complex plan of measures to achieve the recovery of the endangered fish
species. This plan does not envision a decision on dam removal at this
time. There are many unresolved issues associated with the Clean Water
Act and how they affect the dams on the Snake River. Given the ongoing
efforts on salmon recovery and water quality, I am not in a position to
speculate on what conditions would need to exist for me to recommend
removal of the dams.
Question 16. Do you believe that the Corps of Engineers currently
has authority to remove the dams to comply with Federal laws and
treaties?
Response. It is my understanding that they do not.
Question 17. In the US Army Corps of Engineers' most recent Lower
Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study Newsletter
(August 2001), the Corps states that ``the only Federal project we
could find that has received more public comments than this FR/IS
[Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement] is the U.S. Forest
Service Roadless Initiative . . . . Interest in the project was
dispersed over the entire country . . . It appears that no other
project--including the Florida Everglades, the Missouri River Master
Manual revision, and the Headwaters Agreement (redwoods)--approached
this level of public interest.'' What is your timeline for completing
your feasibility analysis and responding to the public and Congress
about this Nation issue?
Response. Senator, it is my understanding that the Corps of
Engineers' current schedule calls for completion of a Final Feasibility
Report and Environmental Impact Statement with a Preferred alternative
in April 2002.
______
Responses of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker to Additional Questions from
Senator Corzine
Question 1. New Jersey's identity and tourist economy are closely
linked to its 127 miles of shoreline and beaches. Through the Corps of
Engineers, the Federal Government has played a vital role in keeping
our beaches healthy through beach replenishment and shoreline
restoration projects. These projects help to protect shore communities
from storm damage, and are extremely important to tourism. What is your
view of the importance of these projects? Would you give them high
priority in your role as Assistant Secretary?
Response. It is my view that shore protection projects play a vital
role in the safety and economic well being of coastal areas. If
confirmed, I will work within the Administration and with the Congress
to increase understanding of the contributions of these projects, which
are comparable to the benefits of flood control, commercial navigation,
and environmental projects.
Question 2. Earlier this year, the Administration proposed changes
to the beach nourishment cost share formulas. I opposed these changes
because I think it is unfair to change the rules after projects have
been agreed to and local sponsors have committed to contributing their
share. Do you believe that it is the Federal Government's
responsibility to honor commitments to its non-Federal partners such as
have been made in beach nourishment agreements?
Response. I certainly believe the Federal Government should honor
it commitments. One of the most difficult aspects of making any change
in policy or law is the need to balance the new benefits to be achieved
by the change against the effects on existing government activities.
Question 3. On September 26, 2000, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the U.S. EPA. The MOA
laid out specific actions to address contamination levels in materials
that will be placed in the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS). If
confirmed, will you work to expedite completion of the terms of the
MOA, which is already behind schedule?
Response. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), I will work with EPA to expedite completion of the terms of the
MOA concerning materials to be placed in the HARS.
______
Responses of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker to Additional Questions from
Senator Daschle
missouri river master manual
Question 1. The revision of the Missouri River Master Water Control
Manual has been ongoing for the last 12 years. Last August, the Corps
of Engineers released a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement
that failed to recommend any Preferred Alternative for managing the
river. If confirmed, will you commit to revising the master manual in a
timely manner and to ensure that the revision fully complies with all
Federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act?
Response. Yes, I will. If I am confirmed, I will ensure that all
decisions will be made within the framework of applicable laws and
regulations, including the Endangered Species Act, and to consult with
the Congress before finalizing any decisions.
______
Responses of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker to Additional Questions from
Senator Clinton
Question 1. If confirmed, will you work closely with me and other
members of the New York delegation with respect to the Corps' emergency
response efforts associated with the horrific terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center in New York City on September11, 2001?
Response. Yes, Senator. The Corps of Engineers has deployed to New
York City experts in the fields of urban search and rescue, structural
engineering support, and debris removal and management. These experts
were on the ground soon after the horrific event occurred. If I am
confirmed, my commitment will join that of the Corps that these
resources will remain deployed for as long as the citizens of New York
need them.
Question 2. Will you work to ensure that all necessary and
appropriate measures are being taken with regard to response efforts at
the World Trade Center site to protect human health and the
environment?
Response. Yes. The Corps has a long and extremely successful track
record of incorporating applicable Federal, State, and city health and
environmental protection requirements into its activities, including
its emergency response and recovery activities. This applies to
activities carried out by both Corps personnel and Corps contractors.
If I am confirmed, I will work with the Corps, EPA and Health and Human
Services as the Federal involvement in response and recovery continues,
to ensure all health and environmental issues are addressed.
Question 3. Will you work with the delegation and the committee to
ensure that we learn from this experience and make any necessary and
appropriate changes to the Corps' emergency response capabilities?
Response. I place a high priority on incorporating lessons learned
into ongoing activities and, if I am confirmed, I will work with the
Corps and all interested parties to examine the scope of Corps
emergency response authorities, and capabilities and to rapidly pursue
improvements to these authorities should we determine impediments to
effective response exist.
__________
Statement of Mary E. Peters, Nominated to be Administrator, Federal
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today as you consider my nomination
for Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. I am sincerely
honored to have been nominated for this position by President Bush,
with the concurrence of Secretary Mineta. Should you choose to confirm
me I look forward to working with this committee, each of you, and your
staff to administer the Federal highway program. I recognize the
historic contributions this committee has made to surface
transportation and the key role it has played in shaping national
transportation policy.
Transportation affects every person in our country and each one of
them, every man, woman and child, has the right to expect a safe,
accessible, affordable and reliable transportation system. This
expectation should be honored, whether it be that of a child living
within tribal Nation boundaries who needs an education; a person with
disabilities, like my own brother, who needs access to training
services; parents who need to spend less time commuting and more time
with their children, or a senior citizen who needs mobility options. It
is for these, our ultimate customers, that we provide transportation
services.
Transportation that is responsive to the citizens and businesses we
serve is vitally important to our nation's economic health and the
quality of life of every American. There are a number of factors to be
considered in ensuring that transportation meets these needs.
I would like to mention four of them today national security,
public safety, quality of life, and commerce. I would normally always
mention safety first. However, after the terrorist attacks on September
11, I thought it important not to distinguish between public safety and
national security on a priority basis.
The Interstate Highway System met a need identified during World
War II, providing a coast-to-coast highway system that would allow this
country to efficiently move troops and equipment, and respond to
natural disasters. While the system is now complete, it is essential
that it be operated and maintained in a manner that continues to enable
the safe and efficient mobilization of military forces and deployment
of disaster response resources. As last week's tragic events
demonstrated, it is essential that our highway system, indeed our
entire transportation system, dependably serve public safety, disaster
response and recovery, and other national security requirements.
Transportation is important to public safety in a number of
aspects, including safety of the infrastructure itself and the ability
of police, fire and other emergency response personnel to reach the
incidents to which they are responding. Most importantly, we must make
our highways safer for all who use them. Too many die or are injured on
our roads. In addition, if an ambulance is stuck in traffic, or a fire
truck cannot reach the blaze, our public safety needs cannot be met. An
efficient, effective transportation system is a crucial component of
public safety.
Mobility is a key component to a good quality of life. The ability
to safely, efficiently and predictably get to our jobs, our children's
activities, our religious services, to obtain medical services, shop
for our needs or take a vacation are all affected by our nation's
transportation systems.
Economic growth and our ability to compete in a global economy are
dependent on transportation systems and services. As Secretary Mineta
has mentioned, when he served as Mayor of San Jose, California, he
learned that transportation was the most effective tool available to
him in fostering economic development. The ability for commerce to move
in a seamless, efficient transportation system can position our country
to remain a leader in the world economy or inhibit our ability to do
so. Building the Interstate Highway System and designating the National
Highway System were strong steps toward ensuring viable interstate
commerce. Now we must ensure that the operation of that system
supports, rather than hinders, commerce.
To respond to these factors, if I am confirmed, I would immediately
focus on several priority areas. These are highway safety,
environmental streamlining, stewardship of public funds, congestion and
bottlenecks, and of course reauthorization.
While progress has been made, more than 40,000 persons lose their
lives every year in highway crashes, and more than 3 million are
injured. Ninety-four percent of all transportation fatalities occur on
highways, and if confirmed I would make it a top priority to improve
highway safety. Using the three-pronged approach of engineering,
enforcement and education we can improve our safety record and reduce
lives lost on the nation's highways. We must ensure that available
funds are spent in ways that generate the greatest possible
improvements for our investment. Rumble strips, for example, are an
excellent, relatively low-cost, way to reduce run-off-the-road crashes
that occur predominantly on rural two-lane roadway sections. Another
area of emphasis is work zone safety, both for highway workers and the
public.
I believe that we can be respectful stewards of the environment
while improving review processes so they are more efficient and less
duplicative. Secretary Mineta has said that taking longer does not
necessarily result in a better project. If confirmed, I would work with
you, my fellow modal administrators, State and local officials, the
environmental community, industry and others to develop methods for
streamlining the environmental approval processes while remaining
mindful of the critical importance of environmental stewardship.
In my position as Director of the Arizona Department of
Transportation, I frequently reminded people in my Agency that the
funds we had been entrusted with to accomplish our mission were indeed
the public's money. I bring that strong belief to the position for
which I have been nominated, and if confirmed will work to further
improve and strengthen oversight and accountability of the public funds
entrusted to the Federal Highway Administration. This includes the
responsibility to accurately and completely estimate and disclose costs
at the onset of all projects, as well as to monitor progress and
expenditures during the life of projects to ensure we indeed get what
we are paying for.
Congestion and bottlenecks have a detrimental effect on air
quality, commerce, and our overall quality of life; it is both
expensive and aggravating. This growing level of congestion is, of
course, the result of demand significantly outpacing capacity; however,
the solution is not just to add capacity. Congestion must be approached
from a systemic and operational standpoint, using a variety of tools
including technology, intermodal and multimodal solutions as well as
capacity improvements. In addition, there are a number of options to
complete construction projects more quickly once they are approved. If
confirmed, I would make relieving congestion a top priority.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
were landmark pieces of legislation. These acts, including firewalls,
minimum guarantees and flexibility provided the funding and tools that
allowed transportation directors, such as myself, to be significantly
more responsive in meeting the State's transportation needs. The
upcoming 2003 Transportation Reauthorization provides an opportunity
for us collectively to build on these successes as well as to be
forward-focused on the transportation challenges and opportunities in
the 21st Century. We can take this opportunity to encourage innovation
and take advantage of the exponential gains possible when the public
and private sectors collaborate to meet these challenges. If confirmed,
I look forward to working with you on transportation reauthorization.
I have spent more than 15 years in the transportation field. I have
had the opportunity to be involved in a number of local, regional and
national transportation issues as State Director of Transportation in
Arizona. In that capacity, I had responsibility for highway, transit,
rail and aviation transportation functions, as well as motor carrier
programs, driver licensing and vehicle registration, and tax collection
and distribution. This experience afforded me the opportunity to
recognize the importance of dealing systemically and inclusively with
issues, remaining mindful of the integration of the various modal
functions in arriving at solutions for the many transportation
challenges in a rapidly growing State like Arizona.
I bring this experience to the position for which I have been
nominated, as well as knowledge in the technical aspects of planning,
building and operating transportation systems, the use of technology in
arriving at solutions, and a background in the finance and economics of
these systems. I have the management and leadership skills to work with
Secretary Mineta to lead the Federal Highway Administration in a clear,
strategic direction should I be confirmed.
Recognizing the many demands on your time, I sincerely appreciate
the opportunity you have afforded me to appear before you today as you
consider my nomination. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
you may have.
______
September 20, 2001.
Senator Bob Smith, Ranking Member,
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510-6175.
Dear Senator Smith: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I contact
you on behalf of my friend, constituent and fellow Arizonan, Mary
Peters. I had hoped to be with Mary this morning as the committee
considers her nomination to be Administrator of the Federal Highway
Administration. However, we have not yet eompleted our work on the
National Defense Authorization Act.
President Bush could not have picked a better candidate to head the
Federal Highway Administration, nor could the Senate consider a better
nomination to administer the Department of Transportation's highway
transportation programs. As head of the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) Mary was known throughout the State as someone
who was willing to listen to all sides of an issue and work toward
building both a consensus and a solution. Her fair and balanced
approach to the diverse transportation problems of Arizona has won her
bipartisan respect and praise throughout the state. I have no doubt
that you will also be impressed with her fairness, her lmowledge and
her commitment to our nation's highway transportation needs.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump,
Member of Congress.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Mary E. Peters to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Do you support full implementation of the new 8-hour
ozone standard, including EPA & DOT guidance to the States on ensuring
conformity of transportation plans with that standard? Please give the
committee a date certain on when the guidance will be issued.
Response. EPA has the responsibility to develop and implement
health based air quality standards. In July 1997, EPA promulgated
stricter ozone and new fine particle standards which have redefined
clean air and will have widespread impacts on the transportation
community in broader regions of the country.
In October 2000, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to provide a
12-month grace period for newly designated nonattainment areas to meet
transportation conformity requirements.
The U.S. Court of Appeals had delayed the implementation of these
revised standards. On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld EPA's authority to promulgate
the standards. However, the Court also concluded that EPA must develop
a reasonable implementation strategy that would reconcile what the
Court considered to be ambiguous provisions of the Clean Air Act.
EPA is developing the implementation plan for the 8-hour ozone
standard to address the Court decision. State and local implementation
guidance, including conformity guidance will be developed once details
of the implementation plan are known.
DOT and EPA have been working on new conformity guidance. As with
the setting of the air quality standards, EPA has primary
responsibility for developing the conformity guidance. I will continue
to work with the EPA to ensure that appropriate guidance is developed
and that State and local transportation agencies will have enough lead
time and flexibility to address the conformity requirements.
Question 2. Increasing evidence from studies done in California and
elsewhere indicate that the health and cancer risks associated with
mobile source air toxics increase significantly above a certain volume
of traffic, levels usually associated with multi-lane highways. How
should this information be incorporated into the NEPA analysis done by
DOT?
Response. In just March of this year, EPA identified 21 Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSATs). It is important to note that in the Final
Rule, EPA stated that they had not found that all of these 21 MSATs to
present a risk to public health. EPA will evaluate the need for and
appropriateness of additional mobile source air toxics controls for on-
highway and nonroad sources, and their fuels. EPA has established a
Technical Analysis Plan to conduct research and analysis on MSATs. EPA
has stated that they will conduct a future rulemaking by July 1, 2004,
in which they will revisit the feasibility and need for additional
controls.
I will work closely with EPA to research mobile source air toxics
to analyze the feasibility and need for additional controls of highway
engines and vehicles and their fuels, and the need for additional
project-level analysis conducted as part of the NEPA review. As
research results on air toxics emerge, FHWA will factor these into its
scoping process to determine how to address air toxics and the
appropriate methodology to employ.
Question 3. In the June 2000 article you submitted to the Arizona
Chapter of the Associated General Contractors, you state that Federal
highway funding ``should not come with strings attached that tell us
where and how to spend those dollars. Washington should not be allowed
to dictate funding requirements to States in the new authorization
act.'' Do you still believe that Congress should not send any
requirements for highway funds distributed to States?
Response. I believe that, for the most part, the goals of the
Federal Government for the Federal-aid highway program and those of the
State Departments of Transportation are mutually supportive. In my June
2000 article, I expressed the position Arizona, like many States, holds
that the Nation will better achieve its goals if State and local
governments have the flexibility and are accountable for addressing
their particular needs and issues. I presented the viewpoint of our
Governor and the Arizona State Legislature. If my nomination is
confirmed as Federal Highway Administrator, I will support and
implement the laws of the United States.
Question 4. One program that comes with strings attached is the
CMAQ program which is provided to States with clean air conformity
problems. The CMAQ program prohibits funding for projects ``which will
result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant
vehicles unless the project consists of a high occupancy vehicle
facility available to single occupant vehicles only at other than peak
travel times.'' The purpose of the program is to encourage States to
look at non-highway solutions to road congestion. Examples include
transit, better operation of existing roadways, intelligent
transportation systems, high occupancy vehicle lanes, etc. Do you
believe that we should eliminate the CMAQ program or significantly
rewrite it to allow funds to be used on new road construction?
Response. No, the CMAQ program should not be eliminated. When
viewed in a national context, the CMAQ program provides just the type
of flexibility the States need. In practice, it is Title 23's most
flexible program.
CMAQ program eligibility should not be expanded to include new road
construction projects available to single occupant vehicles at other
than peak travel times. The strength of the CMAQ program is its
inherent focus on improving the efficiency of the transportation
network, including roads and transit, and assisting clean air goals.
Question 5. Necessary transportation projects should go forward,
and should advance in an efficient and timely way. But efficiency
should not come at the expense of environmental protection and
enhancement. So-called ``environmental streamlining'' needs to address
improvements to the decisionmaking process but it should not involve a
retreat from resource protection. How will you proceed with
environmental streamlining?
Response. Through Section 1309 of TEA-21, the Congress gave strong
direction to streamline the environmental review process. I see this
environmental streamlining mandate as having two parts: the need to
reduce transportation project delays and the need to continue to
protect and enhance the environment. I believe that substantial
improvements can be made in delivering transportation projects in a
timely fashion while continuing to be good environmental stewards.
If confirmed, I will work with the Congress, the environmental
community, and others as I pursue environmental streamlining.
FHWA can and must take action. For example, as the lead Federal
agency on transportation projects, FHWA is uniquely positioned to bring
together the various agencies that participate in the development of
transportation projects and programs. FHWA should build on prior
efforts to do this at various scales, from the national program to
specific projects.
We should enhance cooperation with the State and local
transportation agencies. FHWA can do a better job of coordinating the
Federal Government's involvement in those projects. FHWA should work
with State and local agencies to improve their understanding of
legitimate Federal needs that stem from multiple Federal environmental
statutes.
We should build on longstanding relationships with other Federal
agencies that have statutory responsibilities to review or approve
transportation projects. One promising area is the development of
dispute resolution capabilities, to institutionalize in all agencies
the skills needed to identify and address conflicts in a timely manner.
Question 6. TEA-21 directed the Secretary to develop a memorandum
of understanding with Federal resource agencies to achieve
environmental streamlining. Such an MOU was executed in July 1999. Will
you use this agreement as the basis for continuing compliance with TEA-
21 directives? Will you seek any additional statutory measures to
facilitate environmental streamlining?
Response. I would continue to use the July 1999 MOU. While I see
the MOU as setting the right framework, I believe that its main benefit
will come from efforts to implement it among the signatory agencies in
offices around the country.
I have reached no firm conclusions about the need for statutory
changes. I will continue to evaluate this issue, and welcome the
opportunity to work with the committee on this issue if I am confirmed.
Question 7. Local governments have been waiting for over 3 years
since TEA-21 was passed for the Federal Highway Administration to issue
final regulations that allow local officials greater authority in the
statewide planning process. TEA-21 made clear that there should be a
substantially greater role for rural local officials in the planning
and funding allocation of Federal highway and transit funds. The goal
of this change in the law was to give rural officials more authority
and to close the gap between urban and rural officials in regard to
participation in the planning process. The comment period on these
regulations closed in September 2000 and FHWA has had more than enough
time to issue a final rule. When can I expect a final rule to be
issued?
Response. I know the leadership of this committee wrote to
Secretary Mineta in March of this year asking the Department to
withdraw its proposed rules and to craft new proposals. However, I am
aware of how important this issue is to both State DOTs and local
officials. The FHWA and FTA have advised State DOTS that the TEA-21
requirements for consultation are in effect as statutory mandates, even
without any rulemaking changes.
I am very supportive of a variety of efforts to develop training
and technical assistance and to develop and share best practices.
In Arizona, we successfully developed a new regionally based
planning and programming process by bringing together the State DOT
with regional planning agencies. They came to agreement on what is
called the ``Casa Grande Resolves.'' One of its guiding principles is
that the planning process must include early and regular dialog and
interaction at the State and regional levels; and recognize the needs
of State, local and tribal governments, and regional organizations.
I would work closely with the Secretary and other modal
Administrators to foster local official consultation.
Question 8. As you know, I believe that transportation and air
quality planning must go hand in hand. The conformity requirements of
the Clean Air Act have stimulated smart growth efforts and protect
future air quality. Will you support and make sure that there is a
constant and tight linkage between transportation planning and air
quality goals?
Response. I will support the linkage between transportation
planning and air quality goals as defined in the Clean Air Act.
The CAA's transportation provisions have been instrumental in
reducing air pollution. Emissions reductions from motor vehicles have
accounted for 84 percent of the total emissions reductions of the six
criteria pollutants since 1970. Technological advancements driven by
the Clean Air Act and EPA's motor vehicle emission and fuel standards
have substantially reduced emissions, and these reductions are
projected to continue well into the future.
______
Responses of Mary E. Peters to Additional Questions from Senator
Lieberman
Question 1. In the June 2000 article that you submitted to the
Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors you state, ``. .
. preventing States from moving forward with critical congestion relief
projects due to not achieving air-quality goals that have no basis in
science actually worsens the situation rather than betters it. These
counterproductive measures, intended to punish States that do not
comply with sometimes unachievable and unnecessary Federal mandates
should be erased from future authorization acts.''
As you are aware, I am strongly committed to improving our nation's
air quality and, because mobile sources are a significant contributor
of air pollutants, I played an instrumental role in formulating the
conformity standards in the Clean Air Act. Do you still believe, as
your recent article would suggest, that these Federal mandates are
``unnecessary'' and ``counterproductive?''
Response. As FHWA Administrator I will do everything possible to
help States comply with the Clean Air Act, without the need for
invoking sanctions, through transportation programs that reduce
congestion and reduce emissions. If sanctions are triggered, I will
ensure the law is carried out.
Question 2. A 2-year study released last year by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District in California concluded that the
highest community cancer risks, as high as one cancer in every 300 to
400 people, were found in neighborhoods located within 2 kilometers on
major freeway corridors. Will you require that the Administration
perform a cancer risk analysis and provide a comprehensive review of
alternative for large urban highway expansions? Doesn't NEPA require
that alternatives capable of mitigating an effect as serious as cancer
be considered?
Response. In just March of this year, EPA identified 21 Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSATs). It is important to note that in the Final
Rule, EPA stated that they had not found that all of these 21 MSATs to
present a risk to public health. EPA will evaluate the need for and
appropriateness of additional mobile source air toxics controls for on-
highway and nonroad sources, and their fuels. EPA has established a
Technical Analysis Plan to conduct research and analysis on MSATs. EPA
has stated that they will conduct a future rulemaking by July 1, 2004,
in which they will revisit the feasibility and need for additional
controls.
I will work closely with EPA to research mobile source air toxics
to analyze the feasibility and need for additional controls of highway
engines and vehicles and their fuels, and the need for additional
project-level analysis conducted as part of the NEPA review. As
research results on air toxics emerge, FHWA will factor these into its
scoping process to determine how to address air toxics and the
appropriate methodology to employ.
NOMINATIONS OF THE 107th CONGRESS,
FIRST SESSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James Jeffords (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
CONSIDERATION OF THE NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM W. BAXTER, KIMBERLY THERESE
NELSON, AND STEVEN A. WILLIAMS
Present: Senator Jeffords.
Also present: Senators Roberts and Thompson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning to everyone. It is a pleasure to have you with
us. Given the events of the past 5 weeks, I want each of the
nominees to know that your continued willingness to be a public
servant is admirable and I appreciate that. The positions that
you have been nominated to fill will help the country remain
strong and committed to people during these threatening times.
I would like to let everyone know how we are going to
proceed this morning. I will recognize first Senator Thompson
and then Senator Frist if he arrives for Mr. Baxter, and I
understand Senator Thompson has another hearing on bioterrorism
that he needs to get to. So we will let you go on your way
whenever you desire.
Then I think we'll just go right ahead and proceed. I would
like to recognize Senator Thompson to introduce our nominee.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRED THOMPSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE
Senator Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
very pleased to be here today to introduce a fellow Tennesseean
and a good friend of mine, Bill Baxter, who has been nominated
by the president to serve on the board of directors for the
Tennessee Valley Authority. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for so expeditiously scheduling this hearing so we might
consider Mr. Baxter's nomination before we adjourn. I want to
thank you for inviting me here today and to be able to speak
and participate with Senator Lieberman on our hearing on
bioterrorism, which has just started.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Tennessee Valley Authority
is the nation's largest public power system. It serves 158
local power distributors and 62 industrial customers, the
majority of whom are located in Tennessee. TVA also manages the
Tennessee River system, our nation's fifth largest, providing
flood control and navigation on over 800 miles of commercially
navigable waterway. And TVA is headquartered in Knoxville, the
hometown of the nominee that you are here to consider today,
Bill Baxter.
Bill is a long-time friend who has had a distinguished
record of service in both the public and private sectors in
Tennessee. He is chairman of a family owned business, Holston
Gases, Inc., a distributor of propane, industrial, medical and
laboratory gases. From December 1997 to January of 2001, he
served as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Economic
and Community Development. During his tenure, the State of
Tennessee attracted an impressive level of private investment,
as well as numerous new jobs. This extensive experience in both
the public and private sectors will benefit Bill, as well as
TVA should he be confirmed for this position.
I agree with my colleague Senator Frist that TVA needs a
new management structure to better prepare it to meet the
challenges that it faces today, from electricity restructuring
to curbing air pollution in the Great Smoky Mountain National
Park, and continuing to reduce its level of debt. The job will
not be easy. TVA needs leaders who have business experience,
management experience and leadership ability. Bill Baxter has
all three.
So I am pleased that Bill's nomination, if confirmed by the
Senate, will ensure that Tennessee continues to be represented
on the TVA Board. The majority of TVA's operations is located
in Tennessee, and Tennessee should have a prominent voice in
how TVA is managed. I'm confident that Bill Baxter will be a
strong voice for the entire Tennessee Valley region if he is
confirmed to serve on this board.
So it is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity to
be here to introduce to you Bill Baxter of Tennessee.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Baxter, do you have members of your family here that
you would like to introduce?
Mr. Baxter. I do, Mr. Chairman. My wife, Ginger Baxter, is
here.
Senator Jeffords. We are pleased to have you with us.
Mr. Baxter. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Thompson. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. You now have 5 minutes to give your
statement, and if it's longer than that, we will put it in the
record for you. And so, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. BAXTER, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Mr. Baxter. Thank you very much. I will take less than 5
minutes, I can assure you.
I am honored to be here today as President Bush's nominee
as a Director of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and I am
personally very grateful for the support and encouragement of
Senator Thompson and Senator Frist from my home State. I
appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you and the committee expediting this
hearing so that we can answer any questions you might have and
get to work if you see fit to put me to work.
I look forward to joining Glenn McCullough and Skila Harris
who have come before this committee on the TVA Board and
working with them as well.
As the Senator mentioned, I am a life-long resident of
Knoxville, which is the home of the headquarters of Tennessee
Valley Authority. My family and my business have been users of
TVA power for five decades. And so I appreciate the critical
importance of TVA to our area.
For the last 3 years as Commissioner of Economic
Development for the State of Tennessee, I have come to
understand more fully the crucial role that TVA plays in the
economic prosperity of the entire seven-State region that it
serves. And as the nation's largest public power producer and
steward of the nation's fifth largest river system, TVA has and
will continue to play a pivotal role in the economic future of
our region.
Several challenges lay immediately, however, in TVA's
future. First and foremost is the job of continuing to provide
reliable, low-cost electricity to the Tennessee Valley, a
region that has been growing at a rate of 3 to 4 percent
annually, exceeding the national average considerably. To
support this growth, a primary effort of TVA in the immediate
future will be considering increasing its base generating
capacity. We want to make sure that the lights don't go out in
the Tennessee Valley for lack of prudent planning or wise,
forward-looking investment.
Second, TVA should be a leader in addressing air pollution
issues that come with fossil fuel power plants. TVA's record
investments thus far in pollution abatement measures, along
with its recent announcements of significant new investments
over the next few years will continue. Today, we know that the
users of electricity want both reliable, affordable power and
responsible environmental conduct of business. TVA and all
other power producers must strive to achieve both.
I grew up in the Smoky Mountains, Mr. Chairman, and I still
hike there on a regular basis with my family and friends, and
I'm as interested as anyone in that region in the long-term
health of these mountains and the preservation of their beauty.
Third, the restructuring of the electric production and
transmission industry in our country will continue, with
lessons learned from California and elsewhere. TVA must
continue its earnest efforts to prepare for this restructuring.
Significant progress has already been made. Senator Frist,
Senator Thompson, Senator Cochran, Congressman Ed Bryant from
Tennessee and many others have been working on this very
complex issue. I'm happy to have developed a working
relationship with many of TVA's major customers during my 3
years in economic development with the State of Tennessee, and
I for one believe that listening to your customers is a good
place to start when talking about restructuring.
Likewise, constructive dialog with the investor-owned
utilities can be very beneficial to all of our understanding of
the proper role of TVA in the restructured environment. And I
would look forward to productive conversations with the
executives of those investor-owned utilities as we move forward
thoughtfully to the restructured marketplace.
Fourth, the prudent management and stewardship of the
Tennessee River system is one of the fundamental missions of
TVA. In fact, it was the original mission of TVA, and from my
perspective TVA has done a superlative job in this area and
improvements continue to be made every year. Successfully
performing this core responsibility will continue to be a high
priority at TVA and, again, listening to our customers, all the
users of the Tennessee River system, will be the key to making
those continuous improvements.
I grew up on Norris Lake, which is the first lake created
by the first TVA-built dam, and my family's business has been
located on the Tennessee River for the last four decades, so I
know first-hand the importance of TVA's river stewardship.
And fifth, TVA is a $7 billion a year business, and it must
be run with best business practices. I look forward to bringing
my 20 years of experience in the private sector to the TVA
organization, and doing everything I can to ensure that best
business practices are employed and the best possible financial
results are produced.
As you know, TVA has a very large debt, but the good news
is that this debt is being paid down in a steady, responsible
manner. In fact, today TVA's interest expense as a percent of
its revenues is at the lowest rate in the past 20 years. Real
progress is being made on this critical issue. The stimulating
business challenge at TVA is to continue to reduce that debt,
while at the same time investing prudently in additional
generating capacity, meeting our environmental
responsibilities, promoting economic development in the Valley,
and managing the Tennessee River system in a professional
manner, all the while maintaining rates as low and steady and
predictable as possible for the families and businesses of the
Tennessee Valley.
This is a business challenge of the highest order, and I
look forward to being fully involved in ensuring TVA's
performance in these areas.
Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman and the
committee for expediting this process, as I know you have many
important issues to deal with today as we speak. And if I could
on a personal note as an American citizen and as a father of
four, I want to express my appreciation to each of the members
of this committee for all you're doing to make our country
strong and to preserve our liberties for the next generation.
Thank you very much.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for an excellent statement.
We have two other nominees this morning. I would like Ms.
Nelson and Mr. Williams to come forward please.
First, I will ask each of you, do you have members of your
family with you, and if you do, would you like to introduce
them?
Ms. Nelson. I do, Senator. I have my husband, Kevin Cadden,
my father, George Nelson, my aunt Florence Bojack, and my two
girls Kelsey and Mackenzie.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have my wife Beth
behind me, my daughter Heidi, my mother Mary Jane Williams, my
in-laws Elson and Jane Grim, and my sister Wendy and her
husband, John Kelsey.
Senator Jeffords. Well, that's an excellent representation.
Ms. Nelson, why don't you proceed? You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KIMBERLY TERESE NELSON, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Nelson. Thank you, Senator.
Good morning. It is certainly a privilege for me to appear
before you as the nominee to be the Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information and the Chief Information Officer for
the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I am honored
that President Bush has nominated me to serve with
Administrator Whitman in this Administration.
As the former Chief Information Officer for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental
Protection, I understand first-hand the critical role that
environmental information plays in sound environmental
decisionmaking. I also understand how rapid, sweeping and
profound information technology advancements are creating
expectations for government to keep pace with the private
sector.
The need for strong public administrators has never been
more evident than during the past month, when our country
experienced such devastating loss--and you alluded to that. The
events on September 11 have crystallized the nation's
understanding of its reliance on technology for very basic
operations, for human communications and comprehension of the
disaster that we all experienced. This reliance now causes all
public administrators, and particularly those in the technology
and information arena, to reexamine and strengthen our
programs, our security systems and the quality of our
information. I am both honored and challenged to contribute to
our nation's preparedness in these areas.
I believe it is the obligation of all government officials
to create and manage organizations that allow our citizens to
access information and services with minimal bureaucratic
barriers. The information that we provide must be of
exceptional quality and supported with the analytical tools
which facilitate its use for assessing and managing risk, and
for measuring our environmental improvements. The services that
we provide must be fast and error-free, and most importantly
these services must be convenient to the public, even if that
means crossing traditional bureaucratic lines.
Today, EPA and the States are working hard to provide
consistently high environmental information. We know that the
challenges we face in the 21st century cannot be solved by EPA
alone, but require the Agency to partner and cooperate with
many others. We must join with States, tribes, local
governments, businesses and communities to design and
disseminate the kind of information products that provide a
clear understanding of environmental conditions and solutions.
If confirmed, I intend to promote the President's
principles for government reform. I will assist Administrator
Whitman in this effort by helping to sharpen the focus of EPA's
environmental information strategies, reduce the burden on
industries, promote intergovernmental cooperation and apply
some of the best practices to achieve internal efficiencies. I
am fortunate that EPA has begun this process. I hope to use
many of the solid efforts already underway as a springboard to
accomplish some lasting change.
It is my vision that one day EPA's staff, the Agency's
partners and the general public will be able to easily access
all relevant non-sensitive environmental information about our
regulated facilities and our natural resources; that we will be
able to improve the interaction we have and the understanding
of the regulating community, including the way they report to
us; that we more effectively measure environmental conditions;
and finally that we can enhance the understanding of the
interrelationship between our activities at EPA, the compliance
behavior of companies, pollution prevention strategies and
environmental improvements.
I believe these activities will contribute significantly
toward the burden reduction, the improved data quality and
security, and more informed environmental decisionmaking. And I
believe we can do this while continuing to meet the public's
demand for better environmental information in a more secure
environment.
I am a strong believer in the commitment to work in
government service. My family has a long history of public
service. My father, who is here today, retired from the Navy
Department with 40 years. My younger brother just retired from
the Air Force with 20 years of service. And I have two older
brothers who both served during the Vietnam Conflict. After 28
years in State government, my husband now is here in Washington
as Director of External Affairs for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
I, too, have served in government--22 years with the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. More than half of that time I
spent with the Department of Environmental Protection. During
that time, I helped develop and implement a blueprint for
integrating our program-specific information systems. I managed
several process improvement teams that significantly changed
both the permitting and the compliance activities of the
Agency, and made that information publicly available in an
award-winning information system. And finally, I created for
the first time in that Department their Office of Information
Technology, which was the first executive-level CIO in the
Department.
I am now both ready and enthusiastic to join public service
here at the Federal level as the Assistant Administrator at
EPA. I am confident I can bring the necessary vision,
leadership and experience to work with our partners to achieve
those things I have addressed today.
Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to
working with you, Chairman Jeffords and other members of the
committee and Congress, Administrator Whitman and the entire
Administration to make the environment better for all Americans
and to be responsive to the citizens we serve.
Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions you
or other members may have.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much.
We have Senator Pat Roberts with us, and I understand that
you probably have a reason for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
KANSAS
Senator Roberts. Yes--the gentleman in the middle with the
smile on his face, who has been a good friend for years. Is it
appropriate that I say my remarks now, sir?
Senator Jeffords. Yes, it is very appropriate. He is going
to speak with either before or after option.
Senator Roberts. Steve, what do you think?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. I think you are a tough act to follow, but I
would like to try.
Senator Roberts. I apologize for being late, Mr. Chairman.
The Wilson Bridge was really not very cooperative. It isn't
like it is at home, Steve, as you well know.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and distinguished committee
colleagues, it is with great pleasure to introduce to the
committee Mr. Steve Williams, nominated to become the next Fish
and Wildlife Service Director. Steve is professionally
qualified for this important conservation position. During his
6-year tenure as Secretary of Kansas Wildlife and Parks, he
reinvigorated our State, Mr. Chairman, and all of Kansans
interests by fulfilling the Department's mission of conserving
and enhancing the natural heritage of Kansas, its wildlife and
its habitats. He's a biologist. He's an outdoorsman, so he
understands the unique duties the Director has in really
balancing the conservation requirements with recreation
opportunities.
What impresses me about Steve is that he is not a desk-
bound manager. He visits all of our State parks; has done that.
He listens to park employees and to local officials. And he
coordinates with them their improvements to their operations.
He talks with producers. He talked with landowners about
working with him on improving water quality and wildlife
habitat. I have been there. I have heard him. I have worked
with him in that respect.
He listens to the recreationists, working to improve access
for hiking and camping and bird-watching. I am sure he will
continue this practice in visiting Fish and Wildlife Service
operations all across our country. He has proven to work with
all environmental stakeholders. Our Kansas hunters, our
fishermen really appreciate his very innovative programs to
open up the fishing and hunting opportunities to Kansans on
private lands. The Walk and Hunting Area opens up private lands
for public use. This program, his program is popular, with
700,000 acres that have been enrolled. For fishermen, he has
created the Fishing Impoundment and Stream Habitats, opening up
farm ponds to public fishing.
I hope the committee is also aware that Steve's work and
communications with the environmental organizations is
appreciated. Charles Benjamin of the Kansas Sierra Club
actually commented on Steve's nomination, ``I can't think of a
better person for that job.''
With Steve's success in Kansas, I am confident that he will
make very popular improvements to the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and fairly administrate the Federal wildlife laws and
the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, I hope the committee
will approve his nomination so the entire Senate can confirm
him as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, that is the end of the prepared remarks that
I helped write, by the way, but I would say that knowing Steve
as I have known him back through the years, production
agriculture and some in the environmental community have had
what I call a rather meaningful dialog in past decades. I won't
call is a sheep and cattle war, but I think you can get the
drift of my conservation, and also conversation. And so if
there was one man that was the oil-can person in all of this,
it was Steve. Steve could talk with those who were the
landowners, the farmers, the ranchers and the environmentalists
and the conservationists, and somehow bring that together to
where today in Kansas we don't have a problem. We don't have
controversy.
And so this is again the oil-can person who did that job. I
think he's a natural for the job on a national scale, and I am
just delighted to be here to testify in his behalf, not only
for the job he's going to do, but as a personal friend. And I
thank the Chair for indulging me.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. As always whenever you speak,
you enlighten everybody's day and make it a little bit better,
and it's good to have you here. Stick around.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Williams, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. WILLIAMS, NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR,
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Senator Roberts, for those kind words.
If I could just indulge the chairman for a second, when I
was introducing folks, I didn't introduce my son. He is at
Kansas State University, probably should be in class, but he
may be watching over the Internet, and it is his birthday
today.
Senator Jeffords. All right. We will allow you to do that.
Senator Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, that is the home of the
ever-optimistic, but not so successful lately Wildcats, but
hope springs eternal, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it
is a great honor for me to be nominated by President Bush as
the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. I appreciate the
confidence expressed by Secretary Gale Norton in my
qualifications and ability to lead this Agency, and also
Senator Roberts' confidence.
It really is an honor to be here today and to have the
committee consider my qualifications to lead our nation's fish
and wildlife conservation agency. Should I be confirmed by the
Senate, I assure you that I will eagerly assume the awesome
responsibility of preserving and promoting our nation's fish
and wildlife conservation heritage.
I sit before you today as the nominee, and also as the
Secretary of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. I
have served as Director of this agency for the last six and a
half years. My colleagues in the other 49 States have praised
President Bush's decision to nominate a State Director to this
important Federal position. As a State fish and wildlife agency
Director, I believe that I bring certain qualifications,
experience and perspective to this position that will benefit
constituents in each of your States.
During the 44 years of my life, I have had the opportunity
to travel throughout much of this country. I was born in
Bellows Falls, Vermont while my family farmed in Westminster.
Senator Jeffords. I knew there was something really good
about you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. At that time, my family was farming in
Westminster for markets in Boston and small towns in southern
Vermont. I grew up in rural areas of the northeast where I
enjoyed fishing, hiking, exploring fields and forests. I've
spent the last 16 years working in State fish and wildlife
agencies in three different States. I started as a wildlife
biologist and have been promoted to administrative positions of
ever-increasing responsibility.
I have managed State programs from a centralized location,
relying on widely distributed geographic offices and personnel.
I believe that communicating and cooperating with individuals
in organizations is the only effective means to accomplish
positive fish and wildlife management. This approach includes
consideration of all interested parties, partners and technical
expertise. I believe that common sense approaches to difficult
resource issues are always in the best interest of those
involved. Under my leadership, as Senator Roberts alluded to,
the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks has initiated new
partnerships with State agencies, agricultural organizations,
conservation organizations and private individuals.
One of these was the walk-in hunting area program, again
that Senator Roberts mentioned. This program is a voluntary
incentive-based program that has increased recreational
opportunity, improved local economies and provided private
landowners with income, all financed with the revenue from
Kansas hunters. In just 6 years, the program has grown to
somewhere around 10,000 acres and Senator, this year we're over
800,000 acres. We've just finished up our sign-ups.
This and many other examples of private-public partnerships
are being practiced by State and Federal agencies across the
country. I hope to expand on such opportunities if I am
confirmed in this position.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is facing challenging times.
Lawsuits concerning the listing of threatened and endangered
species and critical habitat designation has consumed much of
the time and financial resources of the agency. Fish hatcheries
and refuges require considerable attention and investment to
maintain the existing infrastructure. Our law enforcement
officers are stretched thin as they attempt to deal with
illegal trade in importation of wildlife. Ecological Services
Offices face mounting project reviews and additional demands on
their time. The research component of the Service has been
somewhat diminished, and managers are forced to make decisions
sometimes without all the desired information.
Finally, relationships between the Service and States,
sportsmen and--women, the fishing and hunting industry, and
private citizens I believe are strained. If confirmed as
director, I will work tirelessly to improve relationships,
forge new partnerships and solve issues confronting the agency.
I have experienced some success by working cooperatively with
disparate interest groups, by challenging existing assumptions,
by communicating a vision, and by encouraging novel approaches
to solve problems.
The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service has expanded
dramatically over the past few decades. However, two things
remain constant. The sportsmen and--women of the country have
been the primary financiers of fish and wildlife conservation.
I would like to take steps to shore up what was once a powerful
relationship between the Service and our nation's hunters and
anglers. Second, private landowners provide habitat for the
majority of fish and wildlife resources. I respect these
landowners' rights and I will work cooperatively in their
interest and in the interest of wildlife.
I will strive to strike a balance between the important
issues of endangered species protection, and the issues
associated with preserving and promoting fishing and hunting in
this country.
The list of issues confronting the new Director of the Fish
and Wildlife Service is considerable. However, with the support
of this Administration, Congress, States organizations and
individuals, the Service will rise to the challenge and improve
our nation's fish and wildlife resources. Americans care deeply
about fish and wildlife. If confirmed as Director, I will
approach the responsibilities of that position with a passion
to deliver programs, opportunities and a vision for the Service
that includes protection and conservation for the American
public's use and enjoyment.
I pledge to work cooperatively, collaboratively and through
communication with all members of the U.S. Congress to assure
that we meet the needs and desires of the American public. We
have an impressive conservation heritage in this country. We
must continue the progress made by previous generations to
assure that future generations share in the wonderful blessings
that we all enjoy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my time is up.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Right on the button, sir.
Mr. Williams. I appreciate your considering my
qualifications. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. I am going to ask Mr. Williams a question
first, so that Senator Roberts can hear your I know very
erudite answer. But endangered species, both plants and
animals--sea lampreys, zebra mussels, water chestnut et
cetera--are one of the greatest threats to Lake Champlain and
encroaching in other areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lake Champlain Office has helped coordinate their response in
Vermont and New York State and local agencies, and having just
completed an environmental impact statement, is now ready to
launch a full-scale sea lamprey control program. The Lake
Champlain Office, however, lacks the personnel and resources
needed to complete this work.
How would you support the work of the Service's in this
partnership in protecting the native species that inhabit Lake
Champlain?
Mr. Williams. Well, I would start out by saying that I've
had the opportunity over the past 2 years to serve on the
Invasive Species Advisory Committee, which advises the National
Invasive Species Council. I don't pretend to be an expert on
invasive species, but I have had I believe a good exposure to
those issues. And you are correct, they are some of the most
critical issues facing the country in terms of environmental
issues.
With respect to Lake Champlain, I can assure you that if I
am confirmed I will take a very close look at that and look at
how resources are divided amongst the facilities in the
Service. And I can assure you that both Secretary Norton and
myself and other folks in the Department of Interior recognize
this problem and are prepared to go to work to do our best to
control where we can and solve invasive species issues in other
parts of the country.
Senator Jeffords. In the Silvio Conte National Fish and
Wildlife Refuge in the Nulhegan Basin, the Service works with
Vermont, New Hampshire and other States, nongovernment
organizations, local governments and citizens to protect and
enhance fish and wildlife resources within the Connecticut
River Valley, using seed money from the Service to facilitate
the partnership--a major success in the protection of the
thousands of acres of former Champion Paper Company lands in
northeastern Vermont through a partnership of Federal, State
and private timber company efforts. Another is the multi-year
Invasive Species Management Agreement with the USDA and local
universities to facilitate control of invasive species across
State lines. The partnership efforts involved allowed the
government to do more with less and increase its interaction
with the American public. How will you increase agency support
for these kind of activities?
Mr. Williams. I've had considerable experience with pulling
together partnerhips in Kansas, and recognize that that really
is the model for the future. The old command and control
approach to conservation just is inappropriate in these times.
And Senator Roberts spent one beautiful afternoon in McPherson,
Kansas on just such a partnership, bringing together Federal
agencies, our State agency and many private partners.
I think in response to your question, the best thing I can
do is to provide that as part of a vision for all folks in the
Service to search out those partnerships, to bring together
local conservation organizations, other NGO's, to work with
communities in areas, to show them the benefits, both economic
and environmental benefits, of investing in our natural
resources.
I am somewhat familiar with that area. In fact, just at the
end of this month a year ago, I spent some time hunting
woodcock just south of the area in northeastern Vermont, and I
think folks in that area will, as time goes by and that refuge
continues to develop, will really appreciate again not just the
environmental benefits of it, but also the economic benefits of
the refuge.
Senator Jeffords. The Mississquoi National Wildlife Refuge
is moving toward a long overdue replacement of its headquarters
building. I have worked to support this project for a number of
years and helped to secure the $2 million to $3 million needed
to complete the project. Full funding of this project at the $3
million level will be critical to the public outreach and
educational function of the Mississquoi Refuge. This is for
Senator Roberts, as well, who knows how important this is.
I see that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, especially
through accessible refuges like the Mississquoi, filling an
increasingly important role in providing public information on
fish, wildlife, natural resource issues. How will you ensure
that this role is fulfilled in the Mississquoi Refuge,
especially through the headquarters project?
Mr. Williams. I'm not fully briefed on all the details of
that particular project. I can assure you that I think that
public outreach, public education is a critical component of
the Service's mission. Again, should I be confirmed, I would be
happy to meet with you and your staff and the staff of the
Service and see what we can do to move the project along.
Senator Jeffords. Good answer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Foundation has
supported several important wildlife conservation projects in
Vermont in recent years. They have worked with a broad range of
groups, including Orbis Company and the Ruptagrao Society, and
the Lake Champlain Lands Trust. Their flexible and
collaborative approach is ideally suited to our approach to
conservation in Vermont. How would you support the mission of
the Foundation, especially in Vermont and the Northeast?
Mr. Williams. I'm familiar with the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation through their partnership with the Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks on about a $5 million wetland
restoration project near Milford--north of Milford Lake. And I
should back up and say again, these partnerships that can
leverage State money or Federal money or private money are
really the model for the future. And I would again urge,
cajole, set as part of the daily activities of Service
employees to look for opportunities to work with a number of
partners, including landowners, to pull together resource
projects that make sense for those areas.
I have fairly good experience in--well, I've had a great
experience in the Northeast. I shouldn't say fairly good
experience, but a fair amount of experience having worked in
Massachusetts for 7 years with the Division of Fish and
Wildlife, and of course born in Vermont. I know folks in that
area and have relationships with them, and I would do my best
to . . .
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you. That's my final
question.
Other members will have an opportunity to submit questions
in writing to all three of you. I will give them 24 hours, so
if you don't get any by then, that will be too late. But
anyway, just to let you know.
Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Baxter?
Mr. Baxter. Yes.
Senator Jeffords. Last May, I introduced S. 933, the
Combined Heat and Power Advancement Act, which would encourage
the development of distributed generation and combined heat and
power projects by standardizing the interconnection process. Do
you think this legislation should apply to the TVA?
Mr. Baxter. I think the TVA should be a leader in any of
these new technologies that are being explored in our country.
I think that's one avenue that TVA perhaps has not taken full
advantage of that it should. There are opportunities there to
be a leader in research in new ways to generate electricity, to
conserve electricity and to co-gen electricity and heat. So I
would certainly be in favor of TVA pursuing those kinds of
opportunities.
Senator Jeffords. Would you support the TVA electing to
voluntarily adopt such a process which would encourage the
development of energy-efficient projects and increase the
supply of electricity in the region?
Mr. Baxter. Yes, I would. And I would emphasize, again
coming from the private sector, I would emphasize the economic
benefits to the users of electricity of those conservation
efforts. And I think if that case can be made more clearly, we
will have a greater success in encouraging people with these
efforts.
Senator Jeffords. Would you commit to voluntarily complying
with FERC regulations as they apply to interconnection to
transmission systems?
Mr. Baxter. I shouldn't make a commitment today because I
don't fully understand all the complexities of that issue. I do
know that in the TVA title language that has been worked out
between many of the stakeholders with TVA, that FERC
jurisdiction over the transmission system has been an issue
that's been discussed and favorably considered. So to the
extent it fits within that TVA title negotiated language, I
would support it. And if not, I would be open to entertaining
and understanding what all the pros and cons are of that issue.
Senator Jeffords. Do you think that TVA, which is already
over $26 billion in debt, should take on additional debt to
finance new power plants when private industry is willing to
accept the financial risk of constructing new plants?
Mr. Baxter. If you look at the needs of electric power in
the Valley in the next few years, it's very likely that TVA
will need to add base-generating capacity to meet the growth
opportunities there in that seven-State region. There are many
possibilities of financing such an addition to generating
capacity, and certainly partnering with private sector
companies should be one of those options that we look at. It
seems to me that long term, again, there is a real opportunity
for TVA there as we restructure the market to find private
sector partners for some of these projects, and I believe they
are actively considering that now.
Senator Jeffords. Shouldn't the TVA at least institute some
kind of competitive bidding for new projects to ensure that the
taxpayers of the Tennessee Valley region are paying the lowest
possible price for their power, and that new generation is
constructed in a cost-effective manner?
Mr. Baxter. Yes, sir.
Senator Jeffords. Good answer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Baxter. Right.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you again. There may be questions
from other members.
Ms. Nelson, in light of the events of the past 5 weeks, the
sensitivity of sharing information has come under increased
scrutiny. Security concerns have now been added to the debate
over the public's right to know and confidentiality of
companies' trade secrets. Can you tell the committee how you
intend to balance these needs, especially in light of the
increased security concern?
Ms. Nelson. I think I have always been a very, very staunch
advocate for public access to information. I like to believe
that that's one of the reasons I was selected for this job.
Back in Pennsylvania, we were very aggressive about making
information publicly available on our web site and through
other sources.
However, September 11 did change some things. Our lives are
all different as a result of what happened. When I come into
the garage every day, the trunk of my car is inspected, the
back seat of my car is inspected. My girls can't take a tour of
the Capitol as a visitor. And in fact, EPA has taken some
information off of its web site, as have many other government
organizations. They are not the kind of things we like to see.
Personally, with my own background, it's my own personal
desire to see as much information publicly available as
possible, because I think that's how we energize and leverage
our citizens to help us protect the environment, so that they
can make the right decisions.
But I think in light of what has happened, we all have to
balance more carefully the decisions that we have to make in
terms of public access and security, and the integrity of the
information that we provide, to make sure that we're providing
the right information at the right time to the right people.
Right now, there are people in the agency that are looking
and doing an inventory of our web site. I hope in the future
that we can apply the best analytical minds to make the sound
and reasonable decisions about the kinds of information we
supply and how we supply it. But we do I think have to strike
that balance, which is very different today than it was 2
months ago. And that will be a difficult job we all have in
terms of striking that balance to ensure that we're protecting
all of the people of the country.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Again, other members will have
an opportunity, but I'll give them just a short time to submit
questions.
I want to move you along just as fast as I can, but there
are two obligatory questions that I have to ask everyone who is
seeking such offices, and a nod of the head will do or a shout
or whatever else you want.
Are you willing at the request of any duly constituted
committee of the Congress to appear in front of it as a
witness?
Mr. Baxter. Yes.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Ms. Nelson. Yes.
Senator Jeffords. Everyone says yes.
Do you know of any matters which you may or may not have
thus far disclosed which may place you in any conflict of
interest if you are confirmed in this position?
Mr. Baxter. No, sir.
Mr. Williams. No, sir.
Ms. Nelson. No, sir.
Senator Jeffords. Good answers.
Thank you very much. That is the end of this morning's
process. We have another meeting I have to go to in view of the
circumstances in the Senate today. So thank you all, and we
will move forward just as soon as we can to make sure that you
get there as fast as possible.
Mr. Baxter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Nelson. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement by Hon. Bill Frist, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee
I thank the chairman and members of this committee for holding this
hearing in a timely manner.
The Tennessee Valley Authority has played and will continue to play
a critical role in the future of Tennessee and the entire TVA region.
TVA is the nation's largest public power producer serving over 8.3
million customers thorough its 158 distributors with a revenue of $7
billion annually. In addition, TVA manages the fifth largest river
system in the country.
Over the last 7 years as a Senator from Tennessee, I have come to
realize that TVA is more than a power public company, more than steward
of a river system, it is an integral part of the Valley's economy and
community.
An organization of this size with such an important role must have
the very best leadership and management team in place. The board must
be able to lead the organization into a future which presents many
challenges including inevitable restructuring of the electric industry,
addressing air quality issues, and managing TVA's debt.
I am pleased that President Bush has nominated an individual who
has the experience and the skills to help lead TVA into this dynamic
future. Simply put, Bill Baxter is the right man for the job.
I have known Bill for most of the last decade and can personally
attest to his intelligence, integrity and ability.
In addition, I've had the opportunity to spend time at his home in
Knoxville. As a young man, Bill cut the lawn of this home, came to love
the property and the expansive view it offered of the Great Smoky
Mountains. Even at a young age, he vowed to himself that someday he
would return to this property, not just to cut the lawn, but as its
owner. And today, he shares this wonderful home with his wife, Ginger,
also a native of Knoxville, who is here with him today.
I should add the Baxter's have four outstanding children, the two
oldest, both girls, are pursuing their college careers at Harvard and
Morehead State, while the two youngest, both boys, are completing their
high school years at Central High School in Knoxville.
A TVA Director must fill three needs for the agency that Bill
Baxter fits exceptionally well:
<bullet> business acumen
<bullet> a commitment to public service
<bullet> and leadership skills that will benefit the entire
Valley.
I'd like to elaborate briefly on each of these.
Bill is a business man--and a good one--who for over 20 years has
shown he knows how to manage a company and meet a bottom line. He is
chairman of Holston Gases, Inc. a distributor of propane, industrial,
medical and laboratory gases. Holston Gases, Inc. has eight
distribution facilities throughout middle and east Tennessee.
Bill is a public servant who knows the importance of economic
development. He served as commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Economic and Community Development for 2 years, returning to his family
business early this year. During his tenure in State government,
Tennessee achieved three consecutive years of record private capital
investment and job creation, shattering all previous records and
winning national acclaim.
Bill is also a community leader who knows that a successful
community must have citizens who are willing to give of themselves.
That's why Bill has served as United Way Chairman, board chairman for
the Knoxville Zoo, and in a variety of other civic and philanthropic
roles. He's also extremely loyal to his college alma mater, Duke
University, where you'll find him in the stands during basketball
season.
Bill's energy knows no bounds; his ability to assess a situation
and make good business decisions is second to none; and as a life-long
Tennessean, he deeply cares about the Tennessee Valley. For Bill
Baxter, the opportunity to serve on the TVA Board is a life-time dream
come true.
Mr. Chairman, Bill's background in business, government and as a
community leader will be a great addition to TVA's board, and I know he
is looking forward to joining Chairman Glenn McCullough and Director
Skila Harris as quickly as possible. Mr. Baxter comes before you with
my full confidence and highest recommendation.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of William W. Baxter, Nominated to be Member of the Board of
Directors, Tennessee Valley Authority
I'm honored to be here today as President Bush's nominee as a
Director of the Tennessee Valley Authority. And I am personally very
grateful for the support and encouragement of Senator Bill Frist and
Senator Fred Thompson from my home State of Tennessee. I appreciate
very much the committee expediting this hearing, and I look forward to
answering any questions you might have today. If the committee and the
full Senate see fit to confirm my nomination, I look forward to joining
Glenn McCullough and Skila Harris on the TVA Board and joining them in
the work at hand.
As a lifelong resident of Knoxville, the home of the headquarters
of the Tennessee Valley Authority, my family and my business have been
users of TVA power for nearly five decades, and I appreciate the
critical importance of TVA to our area. For the last 3 years, as
Commissioner of Economic Development for the State of Tennessee, I've
come to understand even more fully the crucial role that TVA plays in
the economic prosperity of the seven-State region it serves. As the
nation's largest public power producer as well as the steward of the
nation's fifth largest river system, TVA has and will continue to play
a pivotal role in the future of the region.
Several challenges lay immediately in TVA's future:
(1) First and foremost is the job of continuing to provide
reliable, low cost electricity to the Tennessee Valley, a region that
has been growing at a rate of 3-4 percent annually exceeding the
national average considerably. To support this growth, a primary effort
of TVA in the immediate future will be increasing base and peak
generating capacity. We want to make sure that the lights don't go out
in the Tennessee Valley for lack of prudent planning or wise, forward
looking investment.
(2) TVA should be a leader in addressing air pollution issues that
come with fossil fuel power plants. TVA's record investments thus far
in pollution abatement measures, along with its recent announcements of
significant new investments over the next few years, will continue.
Today we know that the users of electricity want both reliable,
affordable power and responsible environmental conduct of business.
TVA, and all other power producers, must strive to achieve both. I grew
up in the Smoky Mountains and I still hike there on a regular basis
with my family and friends, and I am as interested as anyone in the
long-term health of these mountains and the preservation of their
beauty.
(3) The restructuring of the electric production and transmission
industry in our country will continue with lessons learned from
California and elsewhere. TVA must continue its earnest efforts to
prepare for this restructuring. Significant progress has been made on
the complex issues of how TVA will fit in the larger scheme of this
restructured market. Excellent work has already been done by Senators
Frist and Thompson from my home State, Senator Cochran of Mississippi,
Congressman Ed Bryant from Tennessee, and many others. I'm happy to
have developed a working relationship with many of TVA's distributor
customers during my 3 years in economic development in the State of
Tennessee, and I believe listening to these customers is good business,
especially on the issue of deregulation. Likewise, constructive dialog
with investor owned utilities can be very beneficial to understanding
the proper posture of TVA after restructuring, and I look forward to
productive conversations with the executives of these companies as we
move forward thoughtfully into the restructured electric market place.
(4) The prudent management and stewardship of the Tennessee River
system is one of the fundamental missions of TVA; in fact, it was the
original mission of TVA. From my perspective, TVA has done a
superlative job in this area, and improvements continue to be made
every year. Successfully performing this core responsibility will
continue to be a high priority at TVA, and listening to our customers,
all the various users of the Tennessee River system, will the key to
making those continuous improvements. I grew up on Norris Lake, the
lake created by the first TVA built dam, and my family's business has
been located on the Tennessee River for four decades. I know first hand
the importance of TVA's river system stewardship.
(5) TVA is a $7 billion business, and it must be run with the best
business practices. I look forward to bringing my 20 years of private
sector business experience to the TVA organization and doing everything
I can to ensure that best business practices are employed and the best
possible financial results are produced. As you know, TVA has a very
large debt, but the good news is this debt is being paid down in a
steady, responsible manner. In fact, today TVA's interest expense as a
percent of revenues is at its lowest level in 20 years. Real progress
is being made on this critical issue. The stimulating business
challenge at TVA is to continue to reduce this debt in a disciplined
fashion, while at the same time investing prudently in additional
generating capacity, meeting our environmental responsibilities,
promoting economic development in the valley, and managing the
Tennessee River system in a professional manner, all the while
maintaining rates as low and steady and predictable as possible for
both home and business use. This is a business challenge of the highest
order, and I look forward to being fully involved in ensuring TVA's
performance in all these areas.
Once again, I want to thank the chairman and the members of the
committee for expediting this process, as I know you and the other
members of the Senate have critically important issues to deal with
today. As an American citizen and as a father of four, I want to
express my appreciation to each of you for all that you are doing to
make our country strong and to secure our liberties for the next
generation.
Thank you very much.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of William W. Baxter to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. About 3 years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency
issued administrative actions against several TVA power plants for
violating the New Source Review requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Apparently, TVA made significant modifications to these plants without
getting the necessary air quality permits. Now, TVA is fighting these
actions in court. Shouldn't TVA, a quasi-Federal agency, be a leader in
complying with the law and adopting state-of-the-art pollution
prevention and control technology, rather than wasting its resources
fighting another Federal agency?
Response. It is my understanding that there is a legal disagreement
between TVA and EPA concerning the types of repairs and maintenance
work done to the TVA plants which should or should not require air
quality permits, and I'm sure reasonable people can disagree about a
certain technical legal matters. However, I think it is important to
note that through this very process of repair and maintenance, TVA has
continuously made their fossil plants more efficient and cleaner
burning. Additionally, TVA has invested over $1 billion in improved
pollution control equipment over the years and just recently announced
several hundred million additional dollars of investment for the same
purpose.
I agree with you, Senator Jeffords, that TVA should be a leader in
pollution control efforts, and it would be my intention, if confirmed
by the Senate, to advocate this position on the board. The challenge at
TVA, as well as with any power producer, is to properly balance the
need for the production of ample and affordable electricity for the
families and businesses in our service area while at the same time
investing aggressively in pollution control technology.
I believe TVA should work cooperatively with the EPA on these
matters. I agree with you that lawsuits between Federal agencies are a
waste of resources, and every effort should be made between Federal
entities to compromise and negotiate mutually beneficial agreements so
that progress is made for those citizens affected.
Question 2. What will you do to ensure that TVA aggressively
reduces air pollution and aims to achieve at least 1990 levels of
carbon dioxide emissions?
Response. The first order of business at TVA is to ensure that it
is being operated as a very efficient business so that financial
resources are available to continue its investments in state-of-the-art
air pollution control technology. Without such financial health, TVA
will not have the resources necessary to invest in these very expensive
but very worthwhile improvements in air pollution control. As to the
setting of targets for levels of reduction of specific pollutants, I
again would advocate TVA working cooperatively and regularly with the
EPA to establish mutually agreed upon goals and monitor satisfactory
progress in this very important area.
Question 3. What portion of TVA's generation base should come from
renewable energy sources?
Response. Currently, if hydropower is included, TVA produces
approximately 12 percent of its power from renewable sources, which
also include solar, wind and biomass. This is an area in which I have
particular interest, and it is my intention to become personally
involved in TVA's efforts in increasing the generation base that comes
from renewable energy sources. TVA has a very good record of
continuously improving the generating capacity from its hydroelectric
dams, and as technology becomes available to further increase this
productivity, I would advocate implementing that technology in the TVA
system. Further, TVA has now established the largest wind farm in the
southeastern United States, and I look forward to learning more about
the potential for growing this generation base into a feasible part of
our future. TVA is also involved in demonstration projects in solar and
biomass, and I will be personally involved in investigating the
feasible technologies that are available today that could be put to use
in the TVA system as soon as possible. Finally, I support TVA's Green
Power Switch program, which allows families and companies to
voluntarily accept a small surcharge on their monthly bill in order to
purchase blocks of electricity generated from renewable sources. In
fact, my business and my home have purchased such blocks of green
energy.
______
Responses of William W. Baxter to Additional Questions from Senator
Bunning
Question 1. TVA announced plans in 1997 to cut its debt in half by
2007 and increased rates for its distributors specifically in order to
reduce its debt. TVA has now acknowledged that it will not meet its
debt reduction targets and is only on track to make a small dent in its
overall debt. As part of the TVA board, do you plan to meet the
original plan of cutting TVA's budget in half by 2007? If not, can you
provide a justification for Kentucky's TVA customers paying higher
rates to help TVA drastically decrease its debt when it appears that
TVA has no plans to do so?
Response. It is my understanding that in 1997 TVA increased its
rates for the first time in 10 years in order to more aggressively
reduce its large debt. The original announced goal was to cut TVA's
debt in half in 10 years. Since that announcement, significant
additional capital investments have been required for pollution control
equipment as well as added generating capacity to ensure ample power
availability in our growing region. TVA's debt will be significantly
reduced by the year 2007, but it will not be half of its 1997 level.
There is no question that TVA's large debt load is a major
financial challenge for the agency, and if confirmed by the Senate, it
would be my intention as a businessman to focus intently on maximizing
the schedule of debt reduction for TVA. This is critically important to
the financial health of the agency which will enable it to continue
investments in air pollution efforts and adding generating capacity
where required for the continued economic growth of the region.
The business challenge facing TVA is to properly balance the
multiple goals and responsibilities of the agency at the same time:
power generating capacity, responsible pollution control, and
aggressive debt reduction, all the while keeping rates as low as
possible for TVA's customers. I would advocate TVA adopting a realistic
but aggressive debt reduction schedule and communicating regularly with
the Congress about TVA's progress in meeting these goals.
Question 2. TVA's Fiscal Year 2001 earnings are a record $6.9
billion and its projected earnings in Fiscal Year 2002 are to be over
$7 billion. TVA charges higher electricity rates to its Kentucky
customers compared to rates charged by other Kentucky utility
companies. The recent downturn in the economy in Kentucky has made
increased energy costs even more painful. Would you, as a member of the
TVA Board, reduce Kentucky TVA customers' rates so that they compare to
other Kentucky energy customer's rates given the record revenues that
TVA has earned?
Response. TVA's gross revenues have increased as the economy of the
TVA region has grown. Fortunately, our region has grown at a faster
rate than the Nation over the last 10 years, and the attendant demand
for electricity has grown along with it. TVA's rates should be based on
its costs and a prudent return to provide for continued investment in
the necessary infrastructure to produce and transmit power throughout
the region.
The potential for deregulation and restructuring of the power
production industry presents the possibility of the favorable impacts
of competition. Through this process of deregulation and restructuring
of the industry, a fair and equitable way for TVA's customers to have
the option to purchase power from sources other than TVA should be one
of the important results. Coming from the private sector, I believe
that competition makes us all better, competition will make TVA better,
and competition will give the customer the choices it deserves.
Question 3. TVA has admitted that it has a continued desire to
build new generation facilities. Many of the new generation facilities
may not even be needed and would likely increase TVA's huge debt
threatening its financial viability and health. A significant portion
of TVA's debt is linked to construction of power plants that currently
are not running. Would you support allowing distributors to build new
generation for their increased needs which would allow TVA to focus its
financial resources on rate relief for its current customers and long
term debt reduction?
Response. Based on the limited information I have available to me
at this time, I certainly do not oppose the option of allowing
distributors to build new generation if they so choose. This would be a
business decision on their part requiring a large capital investment
and a confidence in an ultimate return on that investment. Of course,
TVA should not build new generating facilities that are not needed, but
through close communication and collaboration with its customers, TVA
has an obligation to make prudent investments in generating capacity
that will be clearly needed as our region continues to grow
economically.
[Omission] an annual and ongoing basis as part of good long-term
planning. The key to success in making these important business
decisions is accurate knowledge of your customers' needs. Additionally,
TVA should study closely the private sector's research on future growth
in demand for electric power. These investment decisions must be made
in the context of the entire industry and not in isolation.
As a government entity, TVA is not subject to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction over its power sales like
private utility companies. Therefore, its rates, charges, terms and
conditions are not subject to FERC regulatory requirements. TVA's
competitor electricity companies, which are subject to FERC, are at a
disadvantage in trying to compete with TVA. Would you support putting
TVA on a level playing field with private utility companies and placing
TVA under FERC regulation?
It is my understanding that consensus language has been developed
in the ``TVA Title'' which has been drafted after many months of
negotiations with TVA customers and many other interested parties. This
language is sponsored by Senators Frist and Thompson from Tennessee and
Senator Cochran from Mississippi, and I believe Congressman Bryant from
Tennessee has been instrumental in this effort as well. It is my
understanding that there are important steps taken toward FERC
jurisdiction over some aspects of TVA's operations although control of
TVA rates is not one of them. Developing this consensus language among
all the affected parties was a very difficult task and I would have
strong confidence in that consensus language as we take our first steps
into the deregulated environment.
I recognize that this is a very complex area, and I have much to
learn about it, if confirmed by the Senate. If I am confirmed to the
TVA board, I will dedicate myself to studying thoroughly this very
important area, and I can assure you that my 20 years of private
business experience will inform my values and my views on the results
which deregulation and restructuring should achieve for the customer. I
would intend to have regular, open and constructive dialog with the
executives of privately owned utilities throughout the region to ensure
a complete mutual understanding of where we need to come out at the end
restructuring and the steps that need to be taken along the way. If TVA
listens intently to its customers and learns from other power producers
throughout the region, we will get the right result.
______
Responses of William W. Baxter to Additional Questions from Senator
Wyden
Question 1. Are you aware that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) has taken steps, in part through issuance of Order
No. 2000, to encourage participation of transmission owning utilities,
including non-FERC jurisdictional ones like TVA, to participate in
regional transmission organizations (RTOs)?
Response. Yes. I have received a preliminary briefing from TVA on
this subject and have done some general research in the financial
press.
Question 2. Do you believe it would be good policy for TVA to
participate in an RTO in the southeast formed according to FERC's RTO
standards?
Response. My honest answer is I do not have enough information at
this time to state an opinion on TVA's participation in an RTO in the
southeastern United States. However, I do believe that as the
deregulation and restructuring of the power production industry takes
place, the transmission system will be equally as important as our
regional and national generating capacity. Currently, our transmission
system throughout the United States is not designed to ``seamlessly''
transmit power from region to region. There are technical challenges
which will need to be met, and major capital investments to improve the
transmission system will be necessary.
It is my view that TVA should participate in some form in the
regional transmission of power in the southeast, whether this be an RTO
or some other mutually agreed upon structure. It is my understanding
that extensive discussions are already underway among the power
producers as well as distributor customers in the southeast. The
guiding principle for TVA as well as FERC should be what is best for
the customer: the most efficient transmission system possible that will
lend itself to the most affordable electric power rates possible.
One final general comment: it is my view that TVA's communications
with other Federal agencies should improve dramatically. This would
include FERC, the Department of Energy, EPA, and others. I have found
in business that stronger efforts at communication usually show the way
to better relations and to solutions that work for everyone.
__________
Statement of Kimberly Terese Nelson, Nominated to be Assistant
Administrator for Environmental Information, Environmental Protection
Agency
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is a
privilege and a pleasure to appear before you as the nominee to be the
Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information and Chief
Information Officer for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). I am honored that President Bush has nominated me to
serve with Administrator Whitman in this Administration. I am pleased
to be joined today by my husband, Kevin Cadden, two daughters, Kelsey
and Mackenzie, my father, George Nelson, and my aunt, Florence Bodziak.
As the former first Chief Information Officer for the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), I
understand firsthand the critical role that environmental information
plays in sound environmental decisionmaking. I also understand how
rapid, sweeping, and profound information technology advancements are
creating expectations for government to keep pace with the private
sector.
The need for strong public administrators has never been more
evident than during the past month, when our country experienced such
devastating loss. The events since September 11 have crystallized the
nation's understanding of its reliance on technology for basic
operations, human communications, and comprehension of the disaster
experienced. This reliance now causes all public administrators, and
particularly those in the technology and information arena, to
reexamine and strengthen our programs, our security systems, and the
quality of our information. I am both honored and challenged to
contribute to our nation's preparedness in these areas.
I believe it is the obligation of all government officials to
create and manage organizations that allow our citizens to access
information and services with minimal bureaucratic barriers. The
information that we provide must be of exceptional quality and
supported with analytical tools which facilitate its use for assessing
and managing risk, and for measuring our environmental improvements.
The services that we provide must be fast and error free. Most
important, these services must be convenient for the public, even if
that means crossing traditional organizational lines.
Today, EPA and the States are working hard to provide consistently
high quality environmental information. EPA's strong commitment to
public access must always be balanced by the need to protect privacy
and maintain the integrity and security of our information policies.
The events of September 11 also underline that our commitment to public
access carries the responsibility to review carefully our publicly
available products to ensure that, while benefiting the public, they do
not contribute to compromising sensitive or vulnerable resources or
facilities.
We know that the environmental challenges of the 21st century
cannot be solved by EPA alone--they will require us to partner and
cooperate with many others. We must join with States, Tribes, local
governments, businesses, and communities to design and disseminate
user-focused information products that provide a clear understanding of
environmental conditions and solutions.
If confirmed, I intend to promote the President's principles for
government reform to make EPA more citizen-centered, results-oriented,
and market-based. I will assist Administrator Whitman in this effort by
helping to sharpen the focus of EPA's environmental information
strategies, reduce burden on industries, promote intergovernmental
cooperation, and apply best practices to achieve internal efficiencies.
I am fortunate that EPA has many important building blocks in
place. I hope to use these solid efforts as a springboard to accomplish
lasting change. And, by continuing to build partnerships between the
Federal Government and those concerned with environmental protection, I
believe we can achieve a goal that we all share B to leave the air
cleaner, the water purer, and the land better protected than we found
it.
I will work to lead the Agency to make technology investments that
will provide long-term value for the Agency, investments that will be
good for all EPA programs. However, I recognize that the application of
technology is the easy part. Far more important is achieving
transformation using technology as the enabler for meeting the needs of
citizens and employees alike, and using information as a strategic
resource for environmental decisions at all levels.
It is my vision that one day EPA staff, the Agency's partners, and
the general public will be able to:
<bullet> easily access all relevant non-sensitive environmental
information about regulated entities regardless of program or
regulating agency;
<bullet> easily access all relevant non-sensitive environmental
information about a physical location, even when that information is
gathered by different government agencies;
<bullet> improve interaction with, and understanding of, the
regulated community including changing the way information is reported;
<bullet> more effectively measure environmental conditions; and
<bullet> enhance understanding of the interrelationship between
EPA activities, compliance behavior, pollution prevention, and
environmental improvements.
Of course, achieving this vision will require extensive
collaboration with my fellow Assistant Administrators, Federal agencies
and departments, State and tribal partners, the regulated community,
and others.
I believe these activities will contribute significantly toward
burden reduction, improved data quality and security, more informed
environmental decisionmaking, and greater flexibility for States to
manage environmental programs. And we can do this while continuing to
meet the public's demands for better environmental information in a
more secure environment.
I am a strong believer in the commitment it takes to work in
government service. My family has a long history of government service.
My father retired from the Navy Department with 40 years of service.
Earlier this year, my younger brother retired from the Air Force with
20 years of service, and my two older brothers served during the
Vietnam conflict. After 28 years in State government, my husband is now
Director of External Affairs at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
I, too, have served in government--22 years with the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. More than half of my career has been spent in a State
environmental protection department. During that time I helped develop
and implement a blueprint for integrating DEP's program-specific
computer systems. I managed several Process Improvement Teams that
significantly changed the department's permitting and compliance
processes and made information about these activities available to the
public in an award-winning system. Finally, I created the first Office
of Information Technology, the first executive level CIO in the
department.
I am now both ready and enthusiastic to join public service at the
Federal level as the Assistant Administrator for Environmental
Information and the Chief Information Officer for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. I am confident that I can bring the
necessary vision, leadership, and experience to work with our partners
to achieve those things I have addressed today.
Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working with
this committee, Members of Congress, Administrator Whitman, and the
entire Administration to make the environment better for all Americans
and to be responsive to the citizens we serve.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Kimberly Terese Nelson to Additional Questions from
Senator Smith
Ms. Nelson, I have submitted some questions regarding the way the
OEI administers the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program. I would
appreciate if you would give this issue your personal attention because
the way the program is currently being run it has created confusion
among the entities responsible for reporting chemical releases and the
public at large who are greatly mislead by the way the information is
being reported.
The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data base and public information
program has been in place for some time. Recent addition of the waste
services industry to the TRI system appears to invite confusion about
the entities responsible for reported chemical releases to the
environment and where such releases actually occur.
For example, a company shipping waste containing TRI chemicals to
an offsite RCRA Subtitle C TSD facility must report this ``transfer''
to a permitted facility as an ``offsite release.'' This transferred
amount is then added to the generator's actual releases to air, land,
and water to determine the company's ``total releases.'' In reality,
however, the transferred chemicals were managed at a permitted RCRA
facility distant from the community (or even State) which must itself
report the TRI chemicals as a release to the environment where they are
located. EPA later corrects for this double counting in determining
overall totals. This raises a number of important questions:
Question 1. Is this an accurate summary of the current TRI
reporting requirement for such waste transfers?
Response. Because EPCRA requires facilities to report on all
releases (the EPCRA definition of release includes disposal), including
those that are sent to-offsite RCRA subtitle C facilities for disposal,
the reporting requirement does not involve double counting. Only when,
When EPA aggregates the TRI data to determine total releases, however,
does the issue of double counting becomes relevant.
Question 2. Is this approach required by statute or regulation? If
so, please provide specific citations. If a matter of agency policy,
please confirm.
Response. EPCRA Section 313 (g)(1)(C)(iv) requires reporting on the
annual quantity of the toxic chemical entering each environmental
medium. P. 298 of the conference report states ``reporting on releases
to each environmental medium under subsection (g)(1)(C)(iv) of the
conference substitute shall include, at a minimum, releases to the air,
water (surface water and groundwater), and land (surface and
subsurface), and waste treatment and storage facilities.'' (U.S.
Congress, House of Representatives. ``Conference Report No. 962,'' 99th
Cong. 2d Session (1986),. EPA believes that the The ``quantity of the
toxic chemical entering each environmental medium'' includes all
releases. and EPCRA section 329(8) defines release to include disposal.
Question 3. Why is a company which transfers TRI chemicals
contained in waste shipped to a permitted RCRA Subtitle C facility for
final disposition (which may include disposal or recycling) required to
report this transfer as a release to the environment?
Response. As discussed previously, EPA believes that the statute
requires the reporting of disposal as a release. Off-site transfers to
another facility for recycling are not reported as releases to the
environment, but rather as offsite transfers for recycling.
Question 4. Isn't the current reporting requirement likely to
confuse and misinform the local community and other members of the
public about releases to the environment in the geographic area where
the transfer originated?
Response. The reporting requirement should not confuse or misinform
the public since the data regarding the specific types of releases is
made readily available. In the data EPA makes available to the public,
the Agency clearly distinguishes between onsite and offsite releases.
Question 5. Wouldn't it be more informative to the public to
require the company transferring TRI chemicals in the manner described
above to report them as a ``transfer'' to a permitted offsite
management facility (e.g.; a RCRA treatment, storage and disposal
facility) rather than as releases to the environment?
Response. Facilities do report such transfers as transfers to
offsite management facilities. Section 6 of the TRI Form R is titled
``Transfers of the Toxic Chemical in Wastes to Off-Site Locations.'' On
the form, among other things, the facility designates the type of waste
management activity (treatment, disposal, recycling, or energy
recovery) being performed at the offsite location.
Question 6. Wouldn't the alternative approach suggested under
Question 5. above improve TRI program administration efficiency by
eliminating the need to later correct for double counting by the
company and the offsite facility?
Response. Not all offsite facilities receiving waste will meet the
TRI reporting criteria and need to file reporting forms, therefore, if
EPA did not require transferring facilities to report transfers for
disposal as releases these releases could go unreported.
Question 7. As Assistant Administrator, will you support an
improved approach that improves program efficiency and provides more
accurate and informative public reporting?
Response. The Toxics Release Inventory has been, and continues to
be a valuable resource for communities, citizen groups, academics,
investment companies, and industry. The program has been very
successful to date. I will continue to look for opportunities to
streamline reporting and otherwise improve the usefulness of the
information.
Question 8. EPA has described the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting
and Recordkeeping Rule (CROMERRR) as voluntary, and thus having little
cost impact on regulated facilities. Yet I am hearing that industry
regards the electronic recordkeeping provisions as essentially
mandatory, in that they would apply to almost any use of computers to
meet EPA recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, the costs involved
would seem to be huge on the order of Y2K. Would you be willing to
consider withdrawing the electronic recordkeeping provisions from the
rest of CROMERRR for further analysis and discussion with interested
parties?
Response. EPA's current regulations do not require electronic
recordkeeping. CROMERRR would not require companies to switch from
paper recordkeeping to electronic recordkeeping; accordingly,
electronic recordkeeping would be voluntary under CROMERRR. In response
to EPA's proposal of CROMERRR, some members of the regulated community
have asserted that, for them, compliance with the recordkeeping
criteria in CROMERRR would not, as a practical matter, be entirely
``voluntary'' because they already maintain electronic records.
In light of the comments provided in response to the proposal, EPA
has decided to conduct further analysis of the impact of the
recordkeeping provisions of CROMERRR. This analysis will, as a matter
of practical necessity, entail further discussions with interested
parties. Of course, until the comment period closes on November 29 and
EPA has had an opportunity to evaluate all comments and to conduct such
additional analysis as may be required, it would be premature to commit
to any particular procedural course of action or substantive revision
of the rule. By the same token, it would also be premature to rule out
procedural steps, like withdrawing the recordkeeping provisions of the
rule, or substantive changes to the recordkeeping criteria themselves.
In considering comments received on the proposed rule, EPA will
consider all options and alternatives, including limiting the scope of
the recordkeeping provisions, adjusting the provisions themselves,
identifying classes of cases that can be treated less stringently, and
providing for the ``grandfathering'' of existing company systems. EPA
hopes to go forward with the recordkeeping component of CROMERRR, but
will do so only if the agency can find an approach that does not impose
unwarranted costs on the regulated community.
Question 9. I understand that today many companies use computers to
help meet EPA recordkeeping requirements. Are you aware of any
significant problems that EPA or State enforcement officials have
actually encountered with accessing or verifying these electronic
records? I would appreciate it if you would look into this matter and
report back to the committee.
Response. State and Federal enforcement communities have expressed
concern about their ability to use electronic records as evidence for
compliance and enforcement purposes. There is little case law available
in this area, and EPA has been cautious in dealing with this issue. I
understand that the EPA Office of Environmental Information recently
asked the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance to
provide additional information on problems encountered when using
electronic records. When that information is available, if confirmed, I
will be happy to provide it to the committee.
______
Responses of Kimberly Terese Nelson to Additional Questions from
Senator Bond
There is concern in the scientific community over the
appropriateness of applying EPA's persistent, bioaccumulative, and
toxicity (PBT) methodology to metals. Scientific experts, including EPA
scientists, discussed the problems of applying the PBT methodology to
metals at an EPA co-sponsored ``Experts Workshop'' in January 2000. In
May 2000, the EPA Science Advisory Board used an Advisory Opinion on
risks surrounding smelters to take the opportunity to state that EPA's
proposals to classify metals as PBTs were problematic because the
methodology did not accurately describe metals' characteristics in the
environment.
In July 2000, the House Science Committee, in a bipartisan letter
signed by the Majority and Ranking members of the full committee and
relevant subcommittee, noted the scientific controversy. The committee
strongly urged EPA to seek independent peer review and refer the
question of the scientific appropriateness of applying the PBT criteria
to metals to the SAB before deciding whether to include metals in any
of the Agency's PBT programs or lists.
In the fiscal year 2001 VA/HUD Conference Report, I proposed, and
the conferees and Congress accepted, language urging EPA to submit the
question of PBT and metals to independent peer review. Specifically, we
urged EPA to seek independent peer review and refer to the SAB the
question of the scientific appropriateness of applying the PBT criteria
and methodology to metals before any application of the PBT criteria
and methodology to metals.
EPA subsequently disregarded these congressional directives by
finalizing increased reporting regulations based upon application of
the PBT methodology to metals without ensuring the scientific validity
of the action by submitting the issue to independent peer review. In
its January 2001 Federal Register notice, EPA committed to seeking
external peer review of the scientific appropriateness of applying the
Agency's PBT criteria to metals generally and to the specific issue of
whether lead and lead compounds should be considered bioaccumulative or
highly bioaccumulative. EPA stated it would send this issue for review
to its SAB in June 2001.
However, in its September response to questions this committee sent
to EPA in June of this year, EPA appears to have changed its position.
Instead of addressing this related set of scientific questions as a
single, cohesive matter, the Agency now seems intent on dividing the
promised inquiry into two separate reviews, the narrower part of which
will be sent to the SAB this fall, with the broader inquiry on PBT-
metals generally to be deferred to some unspecified later time, even
though the answer to the broader question may obviate or inform
consideration of the narrower question. There are also indications the
Agency now plans to downgrade the metals-PBT issue to a
``consultation'' rather than a full review.
Questions. If confirmed, will you support any EPA actions which
disregard my VA/HUD language or Congress' bipartisan direction to
submit the question of the appropriateness of applying the PBT
methodology to metals for independent peer review by the SAB?
The Agency is still trying to decide whether to submit the issues
to the SAB as a single package addressing both the broader PBT-metals
question and the narrower bioaccumulative/highly bioaccumulative issue.
The Office of Environmental Information is playing a key, some would
say domineering, role in this process. If confirmed, will you take
steps to ensure that the full set of issues in the broader review--
consistent with my VA/HUD language and Congress' bipartisan direction--
is referred to the SAB together with the narrower issue relating to
bioaccumulation?
Why is the Agency considering asking the SAB to undertake two
separate reviews instead of a single, comprehensive review? Are the
Agency's deliberations on this issue based on policy or scientific
considerations? If they are based on policy considerations,
specifically what are they? If they are based on scientific
considerations, specifically what are they?
Has the Agency consulted with the SAB about whether it makes sense
to bifurcate the review with the narrow, subsidiary question being
considered before the broader, more fundamental question? If not, why
not? If so, what position has the SAB taken on bifurcating the review?
If confirmed, would you take steps to ensure that the referral of
this issue to the SAB is expedited?
If confirmed, would you support any lesser action by EPA, such as
an SAB consultation, which would fail to meet EPA's Independent Peer
Review Guidelines?
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure free and open
scientific debate and discussion (1) among EPA's various program
Offices with an interest in this subject (including the Office of
Environmental Information), and (2) between EPA and outside groups with
expertise and interest in this matter?
Response. EPA is currently considering how to submit the PBT issues
both the broader PBT metals question and the narrower bioaccumulation
question to the Science Advisory Board, and has not yet made a final
decision. Regarding peer review in general, I recognize the importance
of conducting independent peer review of key science policy issues. I
plan to assure that this type of peer review be undertaken on policy
issues my office addresses.
__________
Statement of Steven A. Williams, Nominated to be Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor for
me to be nominated by President Bush as the Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. I appreciate the confidence expressed by Secretary
Gale Norton in my qualifications and ability to lead the agency. It is
also an honor to be present here today and to have this committee
consider my qualifications to lead our nation's fish and wildlife
conservation agency. Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I assure you
that I will eagerly assume the awesome responsibility of preserving and
promoting our nation's fish and wildlife conservation heritage.
I sit before you today as the nominee and as the Secretary of the
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. I have served as director of
this agency for the last six and a half years. My colleagues in the
other 49 States have praised President Bush's decision to nominate a
State director to this important Federal position. As a State fish and
wildlife agency director, I believe that I bring certain
qualifications, experience, and perspective to this position that will
benefit constituents in each of your States.
During the 44 years of my life, I have had opportunities to travel
and live throughout much of the United States. I was born in Bellows
Falls, Vermont while my family farmed in Westminster for markets in
Boston and small towns in southern Vermont. While growing up in rural
areas of the northeast, I enjoyed fishing, hiking, and exploring fields
and forests. I developed a deep appreciation for conservation as
practiced by my friends and neighbors.
I received a B.S. in Environmental Resource Management from The
Pennsylvania State University, an M.S. in Biology from the University
of North Dakota, and a Ph.D. in Forest Resources also from Penn State.
While going to college, I worked seven summers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming
within Grand Teton National Park. During this time, college provided
knowledge and honed my analytical skills but summers fed my passion for
working with the nation's people and their natural resources.
I have spent the past 16 years working in State fish and wildlife
agencies in three States. I started as a wildlife biologist and have
been promoted to administrative positions of ever-increasing
responsibility. I have managed State programs from a centralized
location relying on widely distributed geographic offices and
personnel.
I believe that communicating and cooperating with individuals and
organizations is the only effective means to accomplishing positive
fish and wildlife management. This approach includes the consideration
of all interested parties, partners, and technical expertise. I believe
that common sense approaches to difficult resource issues are in the
best interest of all involved.
Under my leadership, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
has initiated new partnerships with State agencies, agricultural
organizations, conservation organizations, and private individuals. One
of these partnerships has opened more than 830,000 acres of private
land for public hunting. This program is a voluntary, incentive-based
program that has increased recreational opportunity, improved local
economies, and provided private landowners with income, all financed
with revenue from Kansas hunters. In just 6 years, this program has
grown from 10,000 acres to more than 830,000 acres. This and many other
examples of private-public partnerships are being practiced by State
and Federal agencies across the country. I hope to expand on such
opportunities if I am confirmed in this position.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is facing challenging times
ahead. Lawsuits concerning the listing of threatened and endangered
species and critical habitat designation has consumed much of the time
and financial resources of the agency. Fish hatcheries and refuges
require considerable attention and investment to maintain existing
infrastructure. Law enforcement officers are stretched thin as they
attempt to deal with illegal trade and importation of wildlife.
Ecological Services' offices face mounting project reviews and
additional demands on their time. The research component of the Service
has been diminished and managers are forced to make decisions,
sometimes without desired information. Relationships between the
Service and States, sportsmen and women, the fishing and hunting
industry, and private citizens are strained.
To face these challenges, the Service is staffed by dedicated and
talented people with a deep commitment to fish and wildlife
conservation. They endeavor each day to meet the demands and issues
confronting them in the best interest of the resources and the nation.
The nation is better off because of the work of Service employees.
If confirmed as Director, I will work tirelessly to improve
relationships, forge new partnerships, and solve issues confronting the
agency. I have experienced success by working cooperatively with
disparate interest groups, by challenging existing assumptions, by
communicating a vision, and by encouraging novel approaches to solve
problems.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expanded
dramatically over the past few decades. However, two things remain
constant, sportsmen and women of the country have been the primary
financiers of fish and wildlife conservation. I would like to take
steps to shore up what was once a powerful relationship between the
Service and our nation's hunters and anglers. Second, private
landowners provide habitat for the majority of fish and wildlife
resources. I respect these landowner's rights and will work
cooperatively with them in their interest and in the interest of
wildlife. I will strive to strike a balance between the important
issues of endangered species protection and the issues associated with
preserving and promoting fishing and hunting in this country.
As America becomes more urbanized and our citizens become
generations removed from the land, it is important to maintain a
collective connection to the natural world. Hunters, anglers, trappers,
and wildlife observers maintain that connection. The Service should
partner with State agencies, private organizations, and individuals to
promote wildlife-associated activities for our citizens.
The list of issues confronting the new Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service is considerable; however, with the support of this
Administration, Congress, States, organizations, and individuals, the
Service will rise to the challenge and improve our nation's fish and
wildlife resources. Americans care deeply about fish and wildlife
resources. If confirmed as Director, I will approach the
responsibilities of that position with a passion to deliver programs,
opportunities, and a vision for the Service that includes protection
and conservation of our resources for the American public's use and
enjoyment.
I pledge to work cooperatively, collaboratively, and through
communication with all members of the U.S. Congress to assure that we
meet the needs and desires of the American public and its fish and
wildlife resources. We have an impressive conservation heritage in this
country. We must continue the progress made by previous generations to
assure that future generations share in the wonderful blessings that we
all enjoy.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for considering
my qualifications for this position.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. Mr. Williams, in June, I introduced S. 990, the
American Wildlife Enhancement Act, which encourages conservation
efforts by promoting local control and State partnerships through
flexible, incentive driven conservation programs and increased
partnerships with local land owners. Two of the titles would provide
money to the States to protect wildlife and areas that they determine
to be in need of protection. What is your position on programs such as
this? As Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, would you support
programs that give the States the Flexibility to fund the conservation
priorities they have identified?
Response. While I have not yet had an opportunity to become
familiar with the provisions of your bill S. 990, I am a strong
supporter of the approaches you describe, particularly ensuring that
States can exercise flexibility to pursue their conservation
priorities. If confirmed, I will look forward to working with you on
these issues.
Question 2. The other title of S. 990 would provide money to small,
private landowners who would like to enter into species recovery
agreements to protect endangered and threatened species on their land.
Given that the majority of listed species occur on private lands, I
feel that we must always be aware of the rights of private property
owners and work with them in a collaborative process to protect listed
species. If confirmed, how will you attempt to balance the rights of
property owners and the protection of endangered and threatened
species?
Response. It is my understanding that the Administration requested
and received funding in the Interior Appropriation bill for a new
program to provide incentives to landowners for protection of
endangered species on their lands. I strongly support this approach to
conservation.
It is also my understanding that the Administration is committed to
administering the Endangered Species Act so that takings of private
property do not occur. If confirmed, I will do all that I can to ensure
that the program continues to operate in this fashion.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Chafee
Question 1. Due to high property values and small total acreages
available for protection, many areas in the Northeast are under severe
threat as development encroaches on the region's last remaining open
spaces. In Rhode Island, coastal properties continue to be lost to
development at a great pace, including valuable wildlife areas in close
proximity to the State's five National Wildlife Refuges. Over the past
2 years, I have worked to secure Land and Water Conservation Fund
earmarks to ensure that the FWS has the necessary resources to purchase
expensive coastal habitats. As Director, how will you ensure strong
Agency support for critical Fish and Wildlife Service activities in
Rhode Island and the Northeastern region?
Response. As you know, I am currently most familiar with Fish and
Wildlife Service activities in Kansas. However, I have also worked in
State wildlife agencies in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and have
lived in Vermont and other New England States. If confirmed, I will
make it a high priority to become fully conversant with the Service's
activities throughout the Nation, and I look forward to renewing my
acquaintance with the people and issues in the Northeastern States.
Question 2. Further land acquisition by the Fish and Wildlife
Service in Rhode Island depends upon the completion of a Land
Protection Plan for the Rhode Island Complex. In particular, a 250-acre
project contiguous to the Ninigret NWR is being jeopardized due to the
delay in getting this Plan approved. As Director, will you see that the
Land Protection Plan for Rhode Island is approved as expeditiously as
possible?
Response. I am not familiar with the status of this or other Land
Protection Plans. If confirmed, I will look into this and report back
to you at an early date.
Question 3. During our meeting on October 16, you referred to the
importance of partnerships in meeting the Agency's mission of
protecting natural resources and animal species. Please elaborate on
how you envision partnerships strengthening Service activities in the
Northeastern region and across the country.
Response. I consider the development of partnerships and
cooperative efforts the most effective approach to conserving our
natural resources. The cooperation and participation of Federal, State
and local agencies, organizations and individual citizens generally
develops and effectively implements far more innovative and cost-
effective solutions to natural resource problems than uniform direction
from Washington. While in Kansas, I initiated a number of new
partnership activities between conservation and agricultural interests
generally, and between hunters, anglers and farmers and ranchers
specifically. If confirmed I will place a high priority on bringing
that approach to the activities of the Service.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. Mr. Williams, I would just like to secure your
commitment to come out to Montana if you are confirmed as Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I know you will have many
significant challenges to deal with as Director, but Montana is also
facing significant challenges when it comes to how the Service is
funded, and how those funds are distributed among Regions. I know I've
said this many times in this committee, but the Service in Montana is
understaffed and overworked. It would be very helpful, I think, if you
could see for yourself the conditions under which the Montana staff are
working, and the effect it has on the Service's ability to fulfill its
mission in Montana. Will you come to Montana, Mr. Williams?
Response. If confirmed, I will travel to Montana at an early date,
and will consult with you prior to the visit.
Question 2. Mr. Williams, do you think that the Fish and Wildlife
Service is implementing the Endangered Species Act in an effective
manner? If not, what changes would you make in how the Service does its
job? How would those changes further the purpose of the Endangered
Species Act?
Response. I have not yet had an opportunity to be fully briefed on
how the Service administers the Endangered Species Act, and therefore
have no specific plans or proposals for any changes at this time.
However, it appears that the Service has for several years been moving
toward a cooperative and (where possible) incentive-based approach to
the conservation and recovery of listed species, and for promoting the
conservation of at-risk species so that their listing is not necessary.
I understand that the Administration has proposed new programs, funded
in the Interior Appropriation bill, which further advance this
approach. I am a strong advocate of proceeding in this fashion, while
addressing the specific legal requirements for the protection of listed
species, and consider this by far the most effective way to recover
listed species and to avoid the need to list others.
Question 3. Do you have any thoughts on how the Service can do a
better job of partnering with private landowners to preserve and
protect endangered and threatened species? Along those same lines, what
would you do to combat the negative image many associate with the
Endangered Species Act and its effect on private property?
Response. In addition to the approach indicated in my response to
your previous question, it seems clear to me that there is a great deal
of misunderstanding about the ESA, and particularly its effect on
landowners. While I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with
how the Service currently addresses this issue, I am sure there is room
for improvement both in how the agency cooperates directly with
property owners and in how it explains its activities and requirements
to the public, including landowners. If confirmed, I will make
addressing this a high priority.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Boxer
endangered species
Question 1. The citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) has been used by citizens to ensure that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) fulfills its mandate to prevent species
extinction and recover listed species. For example, 92 percent of all
the California listings in the past 10 years were initiated by citizen
petitions. In several ways, this Administration has expressed hostility
toward citizen participation in the ESA process.
Question 1a. Do you agree that citizens have a valid role to play
in the petitioning and enforcement provisions of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA)?
Response. Yes, I believe citizen involvement is a key element in
making the ESA work.
Question 1b. Do you support the Administration's failed effort to
substantially restrict the ability of citizens to secure the listing of
imperiled species under the ESA?
Response. While I am not familiar in detail with this proposal, I
am advised that it was a good-faith effort to address a real and
continuing problem. If confirmed, I will look forward to working with
you and other interested parties to address this issue in a way which
commands wide support.
Question 2. Inadequate funding of the Endangered Species Act has
been a major hurdle to effective implementation of the statute. For
several years the Service has argued in court that it could not list
more species because it lacked the funding to process the petitions.
FWS has stated that it would need at least $120 million must to address
the existing listing and critical habitat backlog Yet, the
Administration's funding request for these programs was anemic.
Question 2a. What will you do to ensure that the Service has
adequate funding for listing and other elements of the endangered
species program?
Response. I am advised that the Bush Administration's 2002 budget
request for listing represented a 15 percent increase over the 2001
amount requested by the prior Administration, and a 34 percent increase
over the amount actually appropriated for listing in fiscal year 2001.
In fashioning a 2003 request, I believe the Administration will
need to balance the needs of the Endangered Species program, the
Service, and the Department of the Interior with the many other demands
and priorities for increased Federal funding, including other aspects
of the Endangered Species Act itself. There are significant documented
needs and backlogs in many Service and Departmental programs. If
confirmed in time to participate in the development of this request,
which I am advised is already very well advanced, I will do my best to
ensure that funding is requested based on documented needs consistent
with the President's priorities.
Question 2b. What other measures will you take to deal with the
substantial backlog of listing, critical habitat designations, and
Section 7 consultations?
Response. I will if confirmed undertake as a priority an
examination of the Service's current management practices, including
for the ESA, to determine if there are ways to more effectively utilize
the resources and personnel available to the program. I would also
explore whether a greater emphasis on a cooperative approach with all
interested parties might permit the agency to devote a greater
percentage of available resources toward on-the-ground conservation
efforts.
Question 3. Do you believe that the regulatory definition of
``harm'' in the ESA, which prohibits certain kinds of habitat
modification without a permit, needs modification? Are you committed to
enforcing all of the ESA's habitat protections, including those that
apply to private lands?
Response. Because I returned to my position in Kansas following the
confirmation hearing, I have not yet had an opportunity to become
familiar with the Service's administration of the ESA in sufficient
detail to address regulatory definitions. However, I can assure you
that if confirmed, I will enforce all of the provisions of the ESA,
including those applicable to private lands.
Question 4. Do you believe that the ESA is a fundamentally sound
statute, or do you believe that it needs to be legislatively amended?
If you believe it needs to be amended, please indicate the kind of
changes you believe are necessary. Similarly, do you anticipate pushing
forward with any major Administrative reforms relating to ESA
implementation? If so, what are they?
Response. As indicated in my response to your question 3, I have
not yet had an opportunity to become sufficiently familiar with the
Service's administration of the ESA to have developed any general or
specific plans or proposals for changes, whether relating to internal
management, regulations or legislation. I do believe that the ESA is
one of our Nation's most important conservation statutes, and as with
any major program, there may be ways in which it can be made more
effective. If confirmed, I can assure you that any changes I might
propose would be aimed at greater effectiveness in accomplishing the
purposes of the Act.
grizzly bears
Question 5. As you undoubtedly know, FWS finalized a plan last year
to recover grizzly bears by reintroducing them to their historic range
through ``citizen management'' a plan that was developed
collaboratively by the timber industry, labor and conservation groups.
The Bush Administration recently announced that it would not continue
with these efforts. Will collaborative efforts to engage local people
in species recover receive support from this Administration in the
future?
Response. While I cannot speak for the Administration at this time,
I am a strong advocate of State and local involvement in all types of
conservation efforts, including the recovery of listed species. If
confirmed, I will continue this advocacy within the Administration.
landowner incentives
Question 6. The FY02 Interior appropriations conference report
contains a total of $50M for two new endangered and threatened species
landowner incentive programs proposed by the Administration. Could you
explain specifically how you intend to spend the new endangered and
threatened species landowner incentives money?
Response. I am advised that the Administration's request for these
funds provided that they would be used for competitive grants to
individuals and groups engaged in private, voluntary conservation
efforts benefiting listed and at-risk species, and to States, Tribes
and territories for development of such programs by these entities.
These programs can help recover listed species and help ensure that
other species never need to be candidates for listing.
I have not yet had an opportunity to explore with the Service any
details on how the programs might best be implemented. However, if
confirmed, ensuring that these new programs are placed in operation as
quickly as possible will be one of my highest priorities.
Question 7. I fully support landowner incentives; they are the best
way to Make the ESA work effectively on private lands. However, I
cannot support programs that pay landowners to comply with the law
(i.e., programs that fund activities a private landowner is already
obligated to do to comply with the law). Do you agree with this
position?
Response. I agree that we should not pay landowners to comply with
the law. I would draw a distinction, however, between this and programs
which provide financial assistance for such conservation actions as
development of Habitat Conservation Plans. This is particularly
valuable where done by local governments in cooperation with
landowners, as I am advised is the case in Southern California.
I also believe it is valuable and appropriate to offer financial
incentives to landowners to improve habitat or otherwise contribute to
the conservation and recovery of listed species, which they otherwise
have no obligation to undertake.
Question 8. The USDA has a number of successful habitat
conservation programs that are popular with farmers and other private
landowners (e.g., Wetlands Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve
Program, etc.). I have long thought a similar landowner program with a
specific focus on habitat that benefits listed species should be
developed. Do you agree that such a program makes sense? If so, will
you work with me to explore the possibility of developing such a
program?
Response. If confirmed, I would be pleased to work with you in
exploring such an approach. I have considerable experience in Kansas
working with both conservation and agricultural interests and programs,
and would be quite interested in seeing whether the approach taken with
the Wetlands and Conservation Reserve programs could be applied to our
ESA recovery efforts.
unlisted species
Question 9. What priority do you place on the conservation and
recovery of endangered and non-game species, in comparison to game
species, in fulfilling the Fish and Wildlife Service's mission of
``conserving, protecting and enhancing the nation's fish and wildlife
and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people?''
Response. I believe the conservation and recovery of endangered and
non-game species, in cooperation with States, private landowners and
others, is and must continue to be a major element of the Service's
mission.
Question 10. As the Secretary for the Kansas Department of Wildlife
and parks you supported the Conservation and Reinvestment Act that
would provide dedicated conservation funding for the proactive
management of wildlife species before they become listed as threatened
or endangered.
Question 10a. What is the Administration's position on permanent
conservation funding?
Response. I am advised that the Administration has not yet taken a
position on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
Question 10b. What will you do as the director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service to ensure that there is a reliable revenue stream for
these unlisted species?
Response. If confirmed, I will be an advocate within the
Administration for funding for non-listed species, both for the Service
and through cooperative efforts with the States.
wetlands habitat
Question 11. The Fish and Wildlife Service under Acting Director
Marshall Jones filed comments on the Corps of Engineers' proposed
changes to the nationwide wetlands permit program that raised a series
of concerns with the proposal. It is my understanding, however, that
the Secretary of the Interior has decided not to submit the comments.
As Director, what would you do to ensure that the release of scientific
comments or scientific information is not blocked or delayed by
political interference?
Response. While I am not familiar with the details, I am advised
that the Secretary is still reviewing the comments received on this
issue from the various bureaus and offices within the Department, with
a view toward submitting a unified Departmental comment.
If confirmed, I am committed to working with the Secretary and
other policymakers within the Department to ensure consideration of the
best available scientific information in the Department's
decisionmaking process.
wildlife refuges
Question 12. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 set new requirements for the management of refuges. In response,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations establishing
procedures for determining what uses are compatible with the mission of
the refuge system and the mission of each individual refuge. What uses
would you deem to be incompatible with the mission of the national
wildlife refuge system?
Response. I have not yet had an opportunity to be fully briefed on
the Improvement Act and the Service's implementing regulations.
However, it is my understanding that the Act provides that decisions as
to what activities may be compatible are to be site specific
determinations made in accordance with the requirements of the Act. It
accordingly is not possible to provide a list of activities or uses
which are generically incompatible.
arctic national wildlife refuge
Question 13. The Bush Administration has indicated its clear intent
to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development.
Yet, FWS biologists have said in the past that oil and gas development
would do irreparable harm to the wildlife species that depend upon this
refuge. More recently, there was evidence that the Secretary
suppressed, and possibly even altered, information the Service provided
regarding the biological impacts of drilling.
Question 13a. How will you ensure that there is a unbiased
assessment of the impacts that oil and gas exploration will have on the
Arctic Refuge's irreplaceable wildlife species?
Response. As indicated previously, I am committed to open dialog
and reliance upon the best science in making decisions. If confirmed,
and if Congress acts to open the 1002 Area, I will expect U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service biologists to assemble the sound science upon which
the Department can base its decisions on where and under what
conditions to permit specific activities.
Question 13b. How will you ensure that all of the relevant
information is provided to Congress in a timely way?
Response. If confirmed, it will be my priority to ensure that
Congress receives information it requests from the Fish and Wildlife
Service on this and any other issue.
arctic national wildlife refuge
Question 14. Will you protect the professionals in your agency from
any repercussions that might result from public disclosure of
scientific information, whether through the press or other means?
Response. As I have stated in response to prior questions, I am
fully committed to the use of the best science in making decisions. I
am also committed to protecting the professionals in the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service from any adverse repercussions that result from their
acting in a legal and professional manner. As a trained scientist and
manager I am aware that any scientific agency, which the Service is,
must have policies to ensure that information disseminated in its name
is in fact valid. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with
the Service's policies in this regard.
Question 15. Are there any restrictions on agency scientists about
communicating with congressional staff, outside interest groups, the
media, or other interested parties?
Response. I have not yet had an opportunity to become familiar with
how the Federal process to coordinate and review information released
in an agency's name operates. If confirmed, I expect to become
knowledgeable about this process very quickly.
Question 16. The fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill did
not provide funds for lease sale preparation in the Arctic Refuge
coastal plain as the Administration had originally requested. Are you
aware of any plans that are underway to draft regulations or otherwise
plan for leasing in the coastal plain?
Response. No, I am not.
management of outer continental shelf
Question 17. While the Minerals Management Service has the lead
role on Outer Continental Shelf leasing issues, the U.S. fish and
Wildlife Service has a responsibility to consider the impacts that
leasing will have on listed species, migratory birds, polar bears, sea
otters, wildlife refuges, and other resources under the Service's
jurisdiction. I am deeply concerned about the impacts of offshore
leasing activities in California, Alaska, and other sensitive
ecosystems. Will you ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
continues to provide scientific expertise regarding the impacts of
offshore development activities?
Response. I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service has a significant
role to play, in conjunction with other agencies, in the assessments of
the effects of Federal activities on fish and wildlife resources, and I
anticipate that this important role will continue.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Lieberman
Question 1. How will you ensure that the integrity of the National
Wildlife Refuge System is maintained, including ensuring that the
purposes of each refuge are upheld?
Response. It is my understanding that through the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Congress has charged the
Secretary, and, by delegation of authority, the Director, with
maintaining the biological integrity of the System and with ensuring
that the mission of the Refuge System and the individual refuges are
upheld. It is my further understanding that the Congress set forth in
the Act a process by which determination are to be made as to whether
proposed uses of a refuge would comply with these requirements. If
confirmed, I will strongly support these provisions.
Question 2. The laws governing National Wildlife Refuges mandate
that any uses be compatible with their purposes. For example, the
purposes of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are to conserve fish
and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, to
fulfill international treaty obligations, to provide for continued
subsistence uses and to ensure water quality and quantity. Will you
support protecting the purposes for which all refuges, including the
Arctic Refuge, were established?
Response. If confirmed, I will strongly support carrying out the
law by protecting the purposes for which all refuges, including the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, were established, in accordance with
the procedures established by law. I will also carry out any addition
direction which Congress may provide for management of Arctic or any
other refuge.
Question 3. The congressional Research Service found that the House
passed bill (H.R. 4) and Senator Murkowski's S. 388 appear to reduce
the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the Arctic
Refuge coastal plain, including to ``eliminate the usual compatibility
determination processes.''
Question 3a. Could you support legislation that would reduce your
authority over refuge management of fish, wildlife and their habitats
and other purposes?
Response. From a general standpoint, I cannot say what my position
would be on any piece of legislation until I have had an opportunity to
review it.
Question 3b. Given the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge's conclusions
that the Arctic Refuge coastal plain is the center of wildlife activity
for the refuge, how could you support the Administration's endorsement
of legislation that would allow oil development activities that would
not be found compatible with the refuge's purposes?
Response. It is my understanding that the President has stated that
this issue is a priority for him, and I support him on this. The
President's plan emphasizes that Congress should require the use of the
best available technology and ensure that energy production activities
protect the environment of the refuge. Ultimately, a decision to allow
oil development in the coastal plain of the refuge is reserved to
Congress, and if confirmed I would consider it my responsibility to
provide the best available information to address this matter.
Question 4. In light of the recent news that the Interior Secretary
appeared to omit scientific information provided by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, in response to questions from a congressional
committee chairman, how will you give the public confidence that the
full information provided by your professional scientific staff is used
to base management and policy decisions of the USFWS and the Department
of the Interior?
Response. If confirmed, I am committed to working with the
Secretary and other policymakers within the Department to ensure
consideration of the best available scientific information in the
Department's decisionmaking process. This is a responsibility I would
take very seriously.
Question 5. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with its
professional biologists and as the land manager of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge provides scientific information to the public through
its web site, publications, and presentations to the National Research
Council and the media. Will you support the continued distribution of
this scientific information by the professional scientists and land
managers of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Response. Yes.
Question 6. Will you support the professionals in your agency from
any repercussions that might result from public disclosure of
scientific information, whether through the press or other means? Are
there any restrictions on agency scientists from being contacted by the
media?
Response. As I have stated in response to a prior question, I am
fully committed to the use of the best science in making decisions. I
am also committed to protecting the professionals in the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service from any adverse repercussions that result from their
acting in a legal and professional manner. As a trained scientist and
manager I am aware that any scientific agency, which the Service is,
must have policies to ensure that information disseminated in its name
is in fact valid. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with
the Service's policies in this regard, nor with how the Federal process
to coordinate and review information released in an agency's name
operates. If confirmed, I expect to become knowledgeable about this
process very quickly.
Question 7. Existing law prohibits leasing, development and
production of oil and gas from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (in Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act). Can you commit to us that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will not engage in planning for 3-D seismic exploration or
lease sales for the Arctic Refuge coastal plain activities that are not
allowed under current law, nor will it work on such plans if done by
the Interior Department or BLM?
Response. If confirmed, I will not engage in activities prohibited
by law, nor would I cooperate with others in doing so. I am not
sufficiently familiar with the applicable statutes to know if planning
for activities, and contributing environmental expertise to planning,
is allowable, and if confirmed my actions would be carried out with
full respect for the law.
Question 8. The fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations bill did
not provide funds for lease sale preparation in the Arctic Refuge
coastal plain as the Administration had originally requested. Are you
aware of any plans that are underway to draft regulations or otherwise
plan for leasing in the coastal plain?
Response. No, I am not aware of any such plans.
-