<DOC> [106 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:55953.wais] S. Hrg. 106-40 NOMINATIONS OF GARY GUZY AND ANNE JEANNETTE UDALL ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MARCH 4, 1999 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works ----------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 55-953 cc WASHINGTON : 1999 _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS one hundred sixth congress JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Jimmie Powell, Staff Director J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director ------ (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page MARCH 4, 1999 OPENING STATEMENTS Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 6 Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1 Inhofe, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...... 2 Article, EPA's Wasteful Grants............................... 4 Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey......................................................... 5 WITNESSES Guzy, Gary S., nominated by the President to be General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency................................ 7 Committee questionnaire...................................... 22 Prepared statement........................................... 20 Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........29-118 Udall, Anne, nominated by the President to be reappointed as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation..................................................... 15 Committee questionnaire...................................... 120 Prepared statement........................................... 118 Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Representative from the State of Colorado. 7 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL Letter: Office of Hon. Jim Kolbe, U.S. House of Representatives, to Hon. John Chafee........................................... 136 (iii) NOMINATIONS OF GARY GUZY AND ANNE JEANNETTE UDALL ---------- THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1999 U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:01 a.m., in room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John H. Chafee (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Chafee, Inhofe, Baucus, and Lautenberg. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Senator Chafee. All right, let's start. It is my understanding that Senator McCain will be here later to introduce Ms. Udall. We will proceed, and when Senator McCain arrives we will fit him into the program. My plan is that I would make a brief opening statement-- Senator Lautenberg, do you have an opening statement today? Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Guzy is from New Jersey. Senator Chafee. I knew you were going to introduce him. The purpose of today's hearing is to consider two nominations. The first nomination is that of Mr. Gary Guzy, to be appointed as General Counsel of EPA. The second nomination is of Dr. Anne Udall, to be reappointed as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation. We welcome everybody here today. I understand Mr. Guzy's wife is present, as are his daughter and his son, so we welcome you and are delighted that you are here this morning. Senator Lautenberg, a Member of our committee, will introduce Mr. Guzy in a few minutes. We also welcome Senator McCain, as well as Dr. Udall's brother, Representative Mark Udall--is he here yet? Not yet? All right. They will be along shortly. The Office of General Counsel at EPA provides legal services with respect to agency programs and activities, and provides legal opinions, legal counsel, and litigation support. It's a big job. Mr. Guzy was appointed Acting General Counsel by EPA Administrator Carol Browner on November 17, last year. Mr. Guzy has also served as Counselor to EPA and as EPA's Deputy General Counsel. Before joining EPA, Mr. Guzy served as a senior attorney with the Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division. He is a graduate of Cornell Law School, where he also did his undergraduate work. Dr. Anne Udall is currently assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction for the Charlotte-Mecklenberg School District in Charlotte, NC. Dr. Udall has served as coordinator of gifted programs in the school district, and as a Critical Thinking Resource Specialist in the Staff Development Department of the Tucson Unified School District in Tucson, AZ. She began her career in education as a teacher with gifted children with learning disabilities. She received her Bachelor of Arts in secondary education and an M.A. in special education from the University of New Mexico, and a Ph.D. from the University of Arizona in 1987. She was previously confirmed by the Senate to the board of trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation on October 6, 1994. She is the daughter--and Representative Udall is the son--of the late Morris K. Udall, whom most of us knew. Some of us, such as Senator Inhofe, knew him better than the rest of us, because Senator Inhofe served in the House with Morris Udall. Dr. Udall, I understand there is a memorial service for your father later this afternoon, and I know that many here in the Senate would like to pay their respects to this fine gentleman. I am sure he would be very proud of both Mark and Anne if he could be here with us today. The Morris K. Udall Foundation was established by Congress in 1992 as a nonprofit organization, committed to educating a new generation of Americans to preserve and protect their national heritage by the recruitment and preparation of individuals skilled in effective environmental public policy conflict resolution. I am pleased to report that both nominees have impressive backgrounds and are highly qualified for the positions before them. These positions pose challenges that I am confident both are prepared to face. I look forward to hearing what they have to say about their backgrounds and what they hope to accomplish. Senator Lautenberg, do you have a statement here? If you have an introduction--we'll put off the introduction until Senator Inhofe makes an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me say that I have no problems with either of the nominees and look forward to supporting both nominees. Mr. Guzy, while I believe you are going to do a good job as the General Counsel and I intend to support your nomination, I am concerned about how the Agency has been handling some of these consent decrees and some of these lawsuits. Just last week in the Washington Times--you probably read the article--in fact, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my opening remarks, that this article from the Washington Times be placed in the record. Senator Chafee. Fine. Senator Inhofe. They wrote a very disturbing article about the EPA's wasteful grants. In fact, I would like to enter that into the record. The article details how the Agency provides millions in grants to organizations who turn around and immediately sue and lobby the Agency. The appearance is that Federal taxpayers are subsidizing these lobbying efforts and lawsuits. In addition, I am also concerned about how the Agency enters into the so-called consent decrees, where the EPA determines agency policies in what I consider to be ``back-door negotiations.'' The appearance is that the Administration funds lawsuits by environmental organizations who sue the Agency with taxpayer funds; then the EPA turns around, enters into back- door negotiations with these groups, producing consent agreements that bind the Agency outside the normal notice. So because of these concerns, Mr. Guzy--and it's not going to take any time to do this--I intend to hold up moving your nomination until we get a couple bits of information. First, I would like a list covering the last 6 years, of all grants to individuals or organizations that have also sued the Agency. Please include the amount and purpose of the grant and the relevant dates for grants and lawsuits. Second, I would like a list of all parties to any consent agreements that the EPA entered into over the last 6 years. And please---- Senator Chafee. Senator, I just want to make sure that Mr. Guzy is able to get this down. Senator Inhofe. Well, I'm going to give him a copy of this. Senator Chafee. OK. Senator Inhofe [continuing]. And please include a description of what was agreed to in the consent agreements, and which parties were present during the negotiations. Maybe you can address a couple of these things in your opening remarks, and I will stay here for those opening remarks before I have to leave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe and the referenced article from the Washington Times follow:] Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing today. First, I would like to say that I have no problems with either of the nominees. I would like to welcome Ms. Udall and congratulate her on her renomination, I am sure her father would be proud of the work she has accomplished on behalf of the Morris Udall Foundation. Mr. Guzy, while I believe you will do a good job as the General Counsel of the EPA and I intend to support your nomination, I am concerned about how the Agency has handled lawsuits over the last 6 years, supporting those who sue the EPA. Just last week in the Washington Times, a columnist wrote a very disturbing article on the EPA's wasteful grants. In fact, I would like to enter the article into the record. The article details how the Agency provides millions in grants to organizations who turn around and immediately sue and lobby the Agency. The appearance is that the Federal taxpayers are subsidizing these lobbying efforts and lawsuits. In addition, I am also concerned how the Agency enters into these so-called ``consent agreements'' where the EPA determines Agency policy in backdoor negotiations. The appearance is that this Administration funds lawsuits by environmental organizations who sue the Agency with taxpayers funds. Then the EPA turns around and enters into backdoor negotiations with these groups, producing consent agreements that bind the Agency outside the normal notice and comment process. Because of these concerns, and your role as the General Counsel for the EPA, I am requesting that you provide the Committee the following information, and I will withhold my support for moving your nomination forward until we have received the information. 1. I would like a list, covering the last 6 years, of all grants to individuals or organizations that have also sued the Agency. Please include the amount and purpose of the grant, and the relevant dates for the grants and lawsuits. 2. I would like a list of all parties to any ``consent agreements'' that the EPA entered into over the last 6 years. Please include a description of what was agreed to in the consent agreements, and which parties were present during the negotiations. I want to thank you in advance for cooperating with this request and I look forward to supporting your nomination once we have received the information. ______ [From the Washington Times, Wednesday, February 24, 1999] EPA's Wasteful Grants [by Deroy Murdock] The EPA gets by with a lot of help from its friends. Since President Nixon gave birth to the Environmental Protection Agency, its budget has skyrocketed from $384 million in fiscal 1970 to $7.3 billion in fiscal 1998, outpacing inflation by 456 percent. One secret behind EPA's ballistic budget trajectory is its support of non-profit organizations. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) recently released a report titled ``Phony Philanthropy'' by David E. Williams and Elizabeth L. Wright. They explore more than $236 million in EPA grants given to 839 non-profit groups in 1995 and 1996. Like a squad of taxpayer-funded cheerleaders, many of these outfits waved their pom-poms and lobbied Congress for higher EPA spending. EPA grants also squandered tax money on corporate welfare, silly ethnic diversity schemes and projects best reserved to states and localities. These highly politicized boondoggles clean up little pollution and beg to be excised with a budgetary ax. The EPA, for instance, gave $166,888 to the American Lung Association. The ALA lobbied Congress for increased EPA funding, including new money for lung research. Who would you guess that might benefit? The Consumer Federation of America received $380,275 from the EPA to promote ``indoor air quality awareness.'' The CFA then asked Congress to maintain funding of the EPA's indoor air quality activities. The National Rural Water Association received a healthy $14,436,634 from the EPA. It returned the favor by charging its lobbying expenses to the EPA and the US. Department of Agriculture. It organized lobbying by state associations and even incorporated a full-time, taxpayer- funded EPA employee in its legislative efforts through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, a sort of borrow-a-bureaucrat program. The National Senior Citizens Education and Resource Center may be the EPA's most notorious grantee. This offshoot of the National Council of Senior Citizens received a shocking 99.7 percent of its budget from Federal grants in 1995-1996, including $6,074,800 from the EPA. From 1992-1996, it gave $460,043 in campaign contributions--all to Democrats. The Federal Election Commission fined the group $12,000 for campaign violations in 1996. Wearing T-shirts that read, ``SHAME,'' about 20 NCSC members were removed by the Capitol Police after they disrupted a Sept. 23, 1995, House Ways & Means Committee hearing on Medicare. When the EPA isn't spending your money to ask Congress for more money, it showers your money on industries with lots of money. It gave $432,840 to the International Association of Lighting Management to ``test, validate and, if necessary, revise the decades old data underlying Luminaire Dirt Depreciation (LDD) curves used in current lighting system design.'' As anyone who has cleaned up for house guests knows, dusty lampshades are a domestic nightmare. But couldn't General Electric or the folks who sell Mr. Clean perform this vital research? And the EPA's $1,397,718 grant to the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium to underwrite a ``National Earth Comfort Program'' sounds lovely, but why not leave that to the home heating industry? Sometimes it seems the EPA's left hand doesn't know what its far- left hand is doing. What else could explain an $81,391 grant to the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights? It is assisting two ``environmental justice'' lawsuits against the EPA. In short, the EPA is using your money to help lawyers sue the EPA. The circle of life is complete! As if there were no 10th Amendment, the EPA occasionally resembles a giant city hall. The San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners, aka SLUG, received $35,515 from the EPA for ``urban greening, neighborhood beautification and local food production.'' Next time SLUG members need money, they should call San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown at 415-554- 4000. Perhaps most troubling is the EPA's support for non-profits with race-tinged agendas. It gave $11,000 to Boston's Environmental Diversity Forum, for example. EDF's mission is to ``protect the environment by advocating racial, cultural and economic diversity at all organizational levels and in all policies and programs of the environmental movement.'' One hundred thousand dollars in EPA funds went to the Korean Youth and Community Center in Los Angeles for ``linguistically and culturally appropriate community education, technical and small business assistance to find healthy alternatives to perchloroethylene, a dry cleaning agent.'' The EPA should focus on pollution and leave multiculturalism to the Rev. Jesse Jackson and its other champions. The GOP Congress should hold oversight hearings on these and scores of other fishy EPA grants that CAGW has exposed. Then, with this nonsense clearly on the record, it can begin to slash EPA's budget accordingly. Senator Chafee. OK, fine. Now, if you would like to introduce Mr. Guzy, Senator Lautenberg. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to welcome Gary Guzy here because in Gary, we have an example of those who are committed to government service, where extensive opportunity on the outside would be easily available. He is a talented fellow and as noted, Mr. Chairman, the President sent his name up to be General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency, and we are pleased and lucky to have him. He is from New Jersey, as you might guess, and he was New Jersey-born, as was his mother, in my home town where I was born, in Paterson, NJ. Gary had honors when he was in high school, which was an indication of what was yet to come. But then he left our State and attended college and law school in a beautiful part of New York State--it doesn't compare to New Jersey--but he went to Cornell, and he returned to a profession highly regarded in the State of New Jersey, and that is environmental protection. Gary Guzy clerked for an Appeals Court judge, worked in private practice, and then came to Government with a position in Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division. At the Department of Justice, he specialized in wetlands, water quality, federalism, regulatory takings, and hazardous waste issues, and from there he came to the Environmental Protection Agency as Deputy General Counsel, where he helped manage the Agency's legal staff. I must say that it is my view that they have done a terrific job over there. We have gotten rid of a lot of the litigious environmental suits, proceeded to negotiated settlements, and that's why we now have in Superfund almost some 600 sites that are cleaned up, with approximately 100 yet to go. Progress has been notably improved there. From 1995 to 1998 he served as Counselor to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, where he worked on children's environmental health and the restoration of the Everglades, among other issues. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you and Senator Inhofe, who has legitimate questions to ask, will take a few minutes to visit with Mr. Guzy. He is an impressive fellow and I know that he is going to do an excellent job as EPA's General Counsel, and I recommend him to the committee with a full heart and head, knowing that he is going to do a very good job there, and I'm sure he'll be able to respond appropriately to Senator Inhofe's inquiries. I just hope that we will be able to move along with dispatch. Also if I might, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take one moment to welcome Anne Udall, because she represents such a distinguished family. What an appropriate place this is, this hearing room, for Udall family members to gather, because your father was so much an environmentalist and his reputation for honesty and integrity is second to none. We are pleased to have you with us today. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Chafee. Thank you. Senator Baucus. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I am sure all of you have welcomed the family? Senator Chafee. We have, yes. Senator Baucus. Good. Mr. Guzy, I really do wish you the very best in this job. It is not easy, but as you know, public service sometimes has its rewards. Usually it has its rewards, but sometimes its frustrations, and I just want you to know that I am very impressed with how much the EPA has progressed over the years on a practical and pragmatic basis in just trying to solve problems. I know you will follow the same tradition, and I very much urge you to do so. I think Carol Browner has done a terrific job in leading the Agency, and I just hope, again, that you can just help her to keep her feet on the ground, and your head screwed on straight, just keep your focus on what we're all supposed to be doing here, listening to people so that we can do a good job in serving them. Again, there is no reason why I should think you would not do that, and I wish you the very best. Senator Chafee. Thank you. Now I see that Representative Udall is here. You undoubtedly have a busy schedule; if you would like to come up and say a few words on behalf of your sister--and we hope they are favorable words---- [Laughter.] Senator Chafee. You go to it. STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is a privilege to be here today with you. It is even more of a privilege to introduce my sister, Anne Udall, to you. I have known her since an early age---- [Laughter.] Mr. Udall [continuing]. And I am still here to commend her to you. I am sure that Anne is also concerned, on the other hand, that my appearance might torpedo her nomination---- [Laughter.] Mr. Udall [continuing]. So I hope, whether I hurt or help her, that you will take a look at her record, and I think that record speaks for itself. We are very proud of the Udall Foundation and what it has accomplished and what it can accomplish in the future. Anne, in bringing her background as an educator to the Foundation, certainly has been a real asset. As you know, the Foundation has as one of its missions to help educate Native Americans in environmental policy and health policy, and she certainly has been able to bring some important understandings to that part of the mission. I think you also know that the Foundation has really been more aggressive in its mission, including the environmental mediation piece that has just been added, and I would thank the Senate for its support of that undertaking as well. So it gives me great pleasure to introduce my sister to you, Anne Jeannette Udall, and commend her to you. Thanks for letting me appear today. Thank you. Senator Chafee. Fine. Does anybody have any questions? [No response.] Senator Chafee. All right, fine. We know you have a busy schedule, so if you want to go along, that would be fine. Mr. Udall. I'm going to sit here for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, if that's all right. Senator Chafee. All right, fine. Now, Mr. Guzy, we welcome you again. One of the things that impressed me tremendously is the number of lawyers that you supervise in total. Is it 300? How many is it? Mr. Guzy. It's around 250 lawyers, about 350 positions all together, including our support staff. Senator Chafee. All right. Why don't you go ahead with your statement? STATEMENT OF GARY GUZY, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mr. Guzy. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, Members of the committee. It is a great honor to be here today, to have been nominated by the President and asked by Administrator Browner to serve as General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am also deeply grateful to Senator Lautenberg for his very generous words, for the leadership that he has provided on environmental issues, as well as for the service that he has provided to the citizens of my home State. I am delighted to be joined by my wife and children, by EPA's Acting Principal Deputy General Counsel, Lisa Freidman, who has been an employee of the Office of General Counsel of EPA for 22 years, and by Bob Dreher, our Deputy General Counsel. I believe that now is an opportune time to be taking on the challenges of serving as EPA's General Counsel. First, EPA today is a fundamentally different organization. It is one that is reconnected to communities, to the American people, and it is helping to make a difference in the issues that people face in their everyday lives. Whether it be a child who suffers from asthma, or a family who lives near a river too polluted for fishing or swimming, our Nation still has much to do to protect the health of its citizens and its environment. When I think back to my own early childhood, living in Newark, NJ, with a mother--a single parent, a dedicated public school teacher-- from that I recognize that a government that is caring, that is honest, that is open, can make a difference in the lives of ordinary citizens. I look to my own two small children and recognize the importance of the work we are embarked on together to assure them a healthy future and the continued enjoyment of our Nation's legendary natural bounty that has been so important in my own life. Second, I am very hopeful that we are again entering a period of basic agreement on the tasks to be done to advance public health and environmental protection. I know you've heard the phrase about the pendulum swinging back and forth, and it has been doing that for several years, but I really sense a much more fundamental agreement today on the important work that we all have to do together to continue the bipartisan accomplishments of public health and environmental protection of the last 30 years. As our statutes in this area have matured, we have the challenge of keeping their overall goals and framework in mind as we apply them to new situations and in fresh ways, and these developments will challenge us. This will demand balance, will demand common sense, and will demand judgment. If confirmed, I look forward to working in a close cooperative relationship with this committee and its staff in meeting these challenges. I have been privileged over the last several years to have worked with Administrator Browner who, with her senior leadership team, has demonstrated a commitment to the protection of public health and the environment that is accomplished through creative means that provide unprecedented flexibility to communities and to industry. This approach has continued to demonstrate that our economy and our environment are inextricably linked, and that a strong economy and a healthy environment are twin, compatible goals that must drive all of our actions. In the course of this work I have had the opportunity to work with many members of this committee and their staffs on many issues of shared interest. These include working to protect children from the threat of environmental tobacco smoke, to helping to ensure the future of the Everglades, and these efforts have required careful, respectful coordination of activities among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of our Government. When I think of some of the major issues EPA will face over the next several years, I am struck by how central ``sound lawyering'' will continue to be to the success of these efforts. Whether it be new efforts to apply more broadly the lessons learned from reinvention, or our implementation of the protections for children under the new Food Quality Protection Act, whether it be meeting the challenge of the responsible collection, use, and dissemination of information, or EPA's work under the Clean Water Action Plan to address nonpoint source pollution--all of these challenges will demand the best from our Nation's premier environmental law firm. I am delighted to be rejoining a group that is as talented, creative, dedicated, and hard-working as the career staff at EPA's Office of General Counsel. They have an expertise in environmental law that is unmatched. I recognize that EPA's currency with the Congress, with the courts, and with the public is its credibility, and that much of this rests with the objectivity, with the integrity of the work of the Agency's Office of General Counsel. I look forward, if confirmed, to continuing the great traditions of that office and to the opportunity for continued public service. I also know from my career in the private practice of environmental law, representing private industry and States, and then from my work at the Department of Justice and at EPA representing the Federal Government, that keeping an open mind, being attentive to absolute fairness of process for all affected parties, is also essential to the ultimate success of our work. When I clerked for Judge Elbert Tuttle, who had by then served as a Federal Circuit Court judge for 30 years following his already long and distinguished career in private practice and the military, it so impressed me that he was absolutely, vitally interested in my then-relatively uninformed views. And this openness of thinking, this reaching out to hear everyone's perspective, no matter how hard we've been at an issue, no matter how long we've worked at it, how much we've been immersed in it--that kind of reaching out is critical to improving the quality of EPA's analysis and the quality of EPA's decisions. It is also critical that we maintain the highest of ethical standards in our work. These are values that, if confirmed, I will strive to take to my job every day and continue to build in our staff. I also recognize that the EPA's General Counsel has the rare luxury of a vantage point that cuts across all of the Agency's work, providing an important check-and-balance and a means for integrating disparate agency activities. That check-and-balance--if I may address some of the concerns that Senator Inhofe raised--oftentimes, the Office of General Counsel reviews and provides counsel to the activities around the Agency, and I think one of the areas in which I am proudest of the accomplishments over the last 6 years has been the improvements in the management integrity that have occurred at the Agency. There have been vast improvements in that area, and the concerns that you have asked about--whether grant funds are being improperly used to litigate against the Federal Government, whether consent decrees are being used in a way that is inappropriate--are all absolutely fair concerns that we should work together to ensure that you are satisfied on them. I know that we have, in fact, addressed a number of these issues in the past. We have worked hard to ensure that grant funds that the Agency provides are not used in any way, that Federal taxpayer dollars are not used in any way, to support litigation against the Federal Government. That would be inappropriate, and we have a number of management checks built into our system, designed to ensure that that is not, in fact, done. I believe we have provided that list of grants to individuals on the House side, and we would obviously be happy to provide it to you, as well. The questions that you raise about the use of consent decrees are also very important. They pose a number of very difficult and challenging issues for the Agency. As one example, under the Clean Water Act, we now face litigation, brought primarily by environmental groups, in approximately 35 States around the country for the failure of those States and the failure of EPA to carry out its obligations to perform, to carry out total maximum daily load calculations. That provides an enormous management challenge, and it is absolutely true that negotiations through consent decrees, the avoidance of litigation, provides an important management tool in order to help prioritize the Agency's responsibilities and carry those out. In addition, it is very important that the public comment provisions when we do have negotiations and enter into a consent decree are absolutely abided by, that there be a fair and full and open opportunity for public comment about the obligations that the Agency does determine to take on. Generally it is our preference to work through settlement agreements rather than court-bound consent decrees, but there are times when that becomes necessary as well, and we would be pleased to work with you to gain a better understanding of your concerns in that area. I wish you could have joined me several weeks ago when I went door to door at EPA's offices to meet the staff of our Office of General Counsel. The excitement of our lawyers at working for the public on the issues that EPA confronts every day is palpable, it's invigorating, and it's a joy to see. But it also creates a very deep responsibility to lead this group wisely, as does the responsibility of ensuring that our Nation's environmental laws are faithfully carried out. These are public trusts that, if confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you to ensure. I would be very pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have. Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Guzy. Are you willing to appear at the request of any duly constituted committee of the Congress as a witness? Mr. Guzy. Yes, I am. Senator Chafee. And 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. Guzy. No, I do not. Senator Chafee. I think the questions that Senator Inhofe asked were very valid questions, and I will be curious as to the answer, likewise. If you can get those up as quickly as possible, it will help us, because we do want to move along with your confirmation and that of Ms. Udall. Mr. Guzy. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to provide those to you, as well. Senator Chafee. This is a very impressive job which you have, as we pointed out earlier. Not only do you have lawyers here, but you have lawyers scattered around the country. Suppose EPA wants to pursue a clean water permit violator-- I'm giving you a hypothetical here. Now, there would be lawyers, presumably, from the Office of Water at EPA's Office of Enforcement, is that correct? Mr. Guzy. Lawyers from both of those offices, that is correct. Senator Chafee. And your office, the Office of General Counsel? Mr. Guzy. That's correct. Senator Chafee. How about from the Department of Justice? Would there be lawyers there, too, from them? Mr. Guzy. Oftentimes that is the case as well. Senator Chafee. Now, how do you divide up the labor when you get so many cooks in the broth, here? Mr. Guzy. It is more an art than a science. Senator Chafee. I'll bet. Mr. Guzy. Our office often serves the function of trying to mediate and work through the internal differences of opinion that may exist. It's not surprising that oftentimes there are different views. We bear primary responsibility at the Agency for understanding and interpreting the statutes that Congress has created. Senator Chafee. Something that you can be helpful to us on is how we might fine-tune some of these statutes that we have. Now, sometimes it is not possible to do that in the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, or whatever it is. By getting into the act, we open the door, and we may open the door to a lot of trouble. However, it is nice to know what the people out on the front lines would like. So in the course of your work--this committee is here to help you, not to be an obstacle--in the course of your work, if you find that there should be fine-tuning in some respect of these laws, of these environmental laws, come up and let us know and we'll do what we can to fix them up. It may not be possible, but at least we would know from our experience in talking with you. Now, let me ask you this, what are your top three priorities? Give us your priorities. Mr. Guzy. First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, is to act as a careful steward of the environmental statutes that Congress has created. My primary responsibility will be to ensure that the Agency's actions are fully lawful, that they are true to both the letter and the spirit of the environmental statutes, and that they create sustainable constructs under those statutes as we move into new areas that may not have been fully anticipated when they were passed. In many instances, these laws have been around for 25 or 30 years, and they have been enormously successful laws. There are a new set of challenges that really need to be addressed under those laws. Second, I would like to be able to foster new thinking on the Agency's behalf among the staff of the Office of General Counsel on alternative, nonregulatory methods for achieving our goals. Oftentimes we proceed down a course that almost seems pre-programmed to meet the responsibilities of the statutes. Things like enhanced partnerships with industry, communities, our fellow regulators, use of additional tools such as the appropriate use of information--I think that they often provide enormous opportunities for achieving the goals of the environmental and public health statutes and are ones that really merit very, very careful exploration. And then last, I would very much like to employ the skills that I see that I have as a problem-solver and as a finder of common ground, to continue to develop agreed-upon areas of environmental and public health protection. It strikes me that nearly 30 years ago Congress created a very long-lasting structure for the future of environmental and public health protection, and some continuation of the discussion of what should be the framework for the next 30 years, in a nonpartisan and constructive manner, would be an enormously valuable contribution. Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much. I just want to say, before calling on Senator Baucus, that there tends to be a sense of gloom sometimes about the environment. We see cases have been lost or activities taken, but if you just pick up today's New York Times, on the West Coast and the East Coast, you see two very, very exciting articles. The first one deals with the saving of that redwood forest on the West Coast, an incredible achievement for which we give credit to Secretary Babbitt and all who worked on it, and the State of California. On the East Coast, in Maine, you might have seen that they have thousands of acres--I mean, hundreds of thousands of acres--that have been put into what you might call a conservation easement. So good things are happening, and it is important for all of us to realize that and not just concentrate on the setbacks that we receive. Senator Baucus. Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Guzy, I compliment you on your goals, and the last one particularly. I hope you have the time; I suspect that in the daily rush it is going to be difficult to accomplish all that, but I very much hope that you can. I would like you, if you could, to just tell us your thoughts about cost-benefit analysis. It's kind of a buzz word around here, and well intended; people want to balance the costs against the benefits and determine what the proper results should be. Yesterday we had an oversight hearing on the Safe Drinking Water Act and, as you know, there is a cost-benefit analysis provision there, but that's with respect to cancer only and not other health consequences that might occur, non-carcinogenic health consequences that might occur. Senator Voinovich from Ohio suggested at an earlier hearing this year that perhaps cost-benefit should be applied to the ambient air standards and to other statutes. What are your thoughts on what works and what doesn't work? You don't have to be too conclusionary about it, but what are some of the benefits and what are some of the problems that you run into? For example, how do you monetize certain benefits? Just any guidance you might have. Mr. Guzy. Sure. Cost-benefit analysis, Senator, can be a very important analytical tool, cost-effectiveness considerations, for helping to understand and helping the public to understand the nature of the decisions we face in the environment and public health area, and to help improve the quality of those decisions. Nonetheless, it carries with it a number of very significant pitfalls. You've mentioned the Safe Drinking Water Act, and I think it is an interesting model because it represents a very carefully balanced approach to the use of cost-benefit analysis. While it requires that analysis, on the other hand it doesn't mandate the use of its results as a decisional tool, and that's absolutely critical. Second, there was an important recognition that this committee had in adopting that provision, that judicial review of the cost-benefit analysis should not be allowed to overwhelm the decisions that are made, should not become a barrier to carrying out the responsibilities of that statute. Statutes and the challenges they pose may differ, so the kind of balance that is struck under the Safe Drinking Water Act may or may not be appropriate in different areas. You have mentioned the fact that the end points under the Safe Drinking Water Act primarily are cancer; the roots of ingestion are a glass of water, primarily, whereas something like the Clean Air Act--widely dispersed pollutants, a wide variety of end points, and the challenges then become much, much more difficult. There are very tough questions posed by cost-benefit analysis. How do you monetize those benefits? How do you truly understand the values that should be assigned to those things? How much do you value a lost IQ point in a child? How much can you value a decision that a child has to stay indoors, that they can't go outside and play soccer, that they miss a day of school? How do you value human life? Oftentimes the results in cost-benefit analysis are so driven by the assumptions that are put into the equation that cost-benefit analysis really is a fairly crude tool that, in my opinion, cannot be used to drive, in and of itself, decisions about what the appropriate outcome should be. Let me mention one other thing. There is a very wise recognition in the Clean Air Act that science and analysis will change over time, that it will improve, and that's why, for example, in setting public health ambient air quality standards, Congress recognized that that should be done periodically; that you stop, you do the best job you can every 5 years, and continue to refine and improve. If Congress were to set up a test that requires that every question have a full answer in every single way, and that that then can be subject to judicial review in every single fashion, I believe that would be a recipe for not getting the job done and for ignoring the fact that science, our understanding, continues to progress. Across-the-board statutes may be helpful in advancing more informed analysis, but if there is a cross-cutting statute, my belief is that it should not require that cost-benefit-based decisions be employed as a decisional tool across the board, and it should not allow judicial review of those analyses to supplant continued progress. Senator Baucus. That's a very good response. Another buzz word, ``sound science.'' What does sound science mean to you? Mr. Guzy. Sound science means that we employ the best, most reasoned basis for agency decisions; that we use the tools that are available for doing that, such as appropriate peer review to ensure the integrity of scientific decisions; and also that we deploy our resources based upon some understanding of what the relative risks are, based upon use of that science. It oftentimes, I think unfortunately, is used as a codeword to challenge agency decisions and the integrity of those agency decisions based upon an assertion that we may or may not have taken appropriate steps without really looking carefully at those steps. One example is the use of appropriate scientific assumptions. It would be impossible to do our work without using some scientifically valid assumptions, and not having an absolutely complete data set in hand. Senator Baucus. But is it true that in the final analysis it's a matter of judgment, that science can't make the judgment, that a regulator or a public policy person must eventually then make it? Mr. Guzy. I would agree with you, Senator, that science is another tool that informs the kind of public policy decisions that are required under the environmental and public health statutes, that it oftentimes cannot provide complete yes-or-no answers, much as we would like it to be able to. Senator Baucus. Thank you very much. You're going to do a good job. Mr. Guzy. Thank you. Senator Chafee. Senator Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg. Very briefly. Since I come from a business background, I am interested in process. I note that sometimes between various regional offices, that you will get different responses to things, and I am sure that's true in the Office of General Counsel as well. Have you taken a look at that to see how headquarters functions with the regionals and see whether or not everybody has a common view, or what the approach to the problems ought to be? Mr. Guzy. I have, and I have found the same thing that confirms your impressions. At the beginning of last week I met with all of our regional counsels from all 10 of the EPA regions, and we had a very productive discussion about ways that we could improve that situation. In May, for the first time ever, we are hosting in Washington a national law office counseling conference, to provide uniform training to counseling attorneys across the country. In addition, we will be working to create a National Legal Council, consisting of our regional counsels, our Deputy General Counsels who are here today, and our Associate General Counsels who head our very small offices, in order to ensure that for difficult problems we can work them through together, and also that we can wisely deploy our resources so that we are not duplicating expertise in various areas around the country and reinventing the wheel. Senator Lautenberg. OK. You did what I wanted to do, which was to indicate that you are aware of the problem and that you're going to do something to solve it. It would make for easier and more efficient functioning, I think, if we could get that done. Mr. Guzy. Yes, sir. Senator Lautenberg. You did respond in part on this to Senator Chafee. In the enforcement of environmental law there is sometimes a question or a doubt about whether it's the Department of Justice's or EPA's attorneys. Is it possible to have concurrent jurisdiction on these with the two agencies? Mr. Guzy. I have actually had, as you know from my background, the benefit of working in both places. I believe that there is a very productive and strong relationship between EPA and the Department of Justice on environmental matters. They provide a variety of skills that the Agency does not currently have, and they provide an enormously valuable perspective as well, based upon their litigating strength. Nonetheless, I would be happy to work with you to examine ways in which it may be appropriate to explore additional litigating authority for the Agency. Senator Lautenberg. OK. I am on the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over Justice appropriations, and I am interested in seeing how we can improve the function. I thank you very much, and I agree with the comments made by others that you are going to do very well, that you are going to represent EPA and the Government very well, and you also bring some distinction to our precious little State of New Jersey. Thank you very much. Mr. Guzy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Chafee. OK, Mr. Guzy, if you can get those answers to Senator Inhofe quickly, and send us a copy, if you would, to the committee here. Thank you very much. Mr. Guzy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Chafee. All right. Now, Ms. Udall, why don't you go ahead with your statement? STATEMENT OF ANNE UDALL, NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE REAPPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION Ms. Udall. All right. I asked Mark to stay so that I could really tell you the truth about him. [Laughter.] Ms. Udall. We are all really excited about his new job. We think it's funny that he has to wear a coat and tie every day, so we give him a hard time, but we're very proud of Mark. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased and honored to be nominated for another term on the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. Since the Foundation's beginning 4 years ago, I have had the privilege of serving on the Foundation as the vice chair. In the past 4 years we have proudly carried on the vision of a man who has been a great public servant. As Senator Chafee mentioned, today is particularly poignant for me as his colleagues and my family will honor Dad at a memorial service this afternoon in a place that he loved, the U.S. Congress. There has been much said about Dad over the years, but when Mark and I and four of my other brothers and sisters were at the White House on behalf of Dad, and President Clinton awarded Dad the Medal of Freedom, the President said about Dad, His landmark achievements, such as reforming campaign finance, preserving our forests, safeguarding the Alaskan wilderness, and defending the rights of Native Americans were important indeed. But he distinguished himself above all as a man to whom other leaders would turn for judgment, skill, and wisdom. Mo Udall is truly a man for all seasons and a role model for what is best in American democracy. Senators will recall that the Udall Foundation is both similar to, and different from, its predecessors in the Federal family, the Truman, Madison, and Goldwater Foundations. We are similar in that we are educational entities that award college scholarships, fellowships, and internships to further public goals. The Udall Foundation's focuses are the environment and Native American affairs. We differ in that our Foundation was given a broader mandate than the others. Congress also told us to do policy work in the areas of Native American health care and environmental conflict resolution; to hold annual conferences on important national issues; and to work with the Udall Center at the University of Arizona to generate new research in our fields. The Foundation, in carrying on Dad's legacy, is dedicated to civility, integrity, and consensus. Since our establishment we have accomplished the following. The Foundation has awarded 220 scholarships to college juniors and seniors who are planning careers in the environment or Native American health care. Interest in the Udall scholarships has grown rapidly and today, more than 1,200 colleges and universities participate. Senator Chafee. I didn't quite understand that. What does it mean, ``participate''? Ms. Udall. One of the ways that you succeed in awarding scholarships is that you make sure that each campus has a scholarship representative. Actually, campuses can turn you down. So a scholarship program can come to a campus and say, ``We'd like you to publicize this,'' and they can say no. So it's really quite an accomplishment when you have 1,200 campuses that actually have representatives who say, ``I will shepherd this through; I will make sure students hear about it.'' Senator Chafee. Does Brown University participate, for example? Do you know? Ms. Udall. Yes. Senator Chafee. The University of Rhode Island, perchance? Do you know? I mean, it seems to me that they ought to. Ms. Udall. If they don't, we'll make sure they do. [Laughter.] Senator Chafee. Well, if you could draw it to their attention, I would appreciate it. Ms. Udall. Definitely. Senator Chafee. It seems to me that it makes a scholarship available for the young people who are there. Ms. Udall. Right. Senator Chafee. Thank you. Go ahead. Ms. Udall. The demand is such that the Board would like to raise the annual number of awards from 75 to 100, and the stipend from $5,000 to $7,500. We have initiated the first Native American congressional Internship Program, with which I know you are familiar. This year we graduated and sent back to their tribes the third class of Udall interns with an enriched knowledge of Congress and the executive branch. Congressional interns, all of whom are college graduates, are split evenly between Republican and Democratic offices. Three slots have been available at the White House. Interns are lodged at The George Washington University and are provided a per diem and, upon successful completion of the program, a stipend of $1,200. The program also provides regular counseling, travel to historic sites, and special meetings with national leaders. The evidence thus far suggests that our graduates are having a dramatic impact on their tribes. The Foundation has begun a program to support top doctoral candidates in their dissertation years. Last year we began by authorizing the gift of $24,000 each to two of the Nation's leading graduate students after a national competition. The first year was judged a success, yielding two potentially publishable theses covering new ground in environmental research. The Board has decided to continue the program this year and expand it over time as our financial resources grow. We have sponsored two widely reported national conferences on environmental issues, and a third conference last October on Native American health care. The Foundation has conducted extensive preliminary planning for a program that will begin this year, which is called Parks In Focus. In cooperation with the Boys and Girls Club, the National Park Service, and two private concerns, Cannon and Kodak, we will take inner city into our National Parks for long weekends. They will be given cameras and will engage in photography contests. Their photos then will be displayed in their schools. This effort with grade school children will supplement our educational programs which focus primarily on college and graduate students. Finally, again, an effort with which the committee is very familiar, we have undertaken a searching analysis of the methods of environmental conflict resolution and its possible use by Federal agencies. The Foundation's efforts include convening a large national conference on this subject and conducting simulations to test negotiating methods. This research led to a request by Senator John McCain, that the Foundation undertake a formal role as the Federal mediator in environmental disputes. In consultation with the White House, Senator McCain introduced S. 399, which was subsequently approved by the final Senate and House and signed by President Clinton in January of last year. The law creates within the Udall Foundation a new Federal entity known as the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. This Institute will be located with the Foundation in Tucson, providing a neutral site within the Federal establishment but outside the Beltway where public and private interests can seek common ground and settle environmental disputes. The Institute is intended to give yet another boost to the growing environmental conflict resolution movement, to move away from a period of confrontation and litigation to a new area where we follow Mo Udall's lead and strive for consensus. I am hopeful that the committee can see the great work that the Foundation has undertaken and is continuing to pursue. For me personally, as Mo's daughter and as an American who is committed to public service in my own life, serving on the Board of Trustees has been a very special honor for me. Over the past several years, as Dad struggled daily with the trials of Parkinson's disease, I had a great deal of pride and satisfaction knowing that in some small way I was able to carry on his great work. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve on the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. Thank you. Senator Chafee. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Udall. Are you willing to appear at the request of any duly constituted committee of the Congress as a witness? Ms. Udall. Yes. Senator Chafee. 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? Ms. Udall. No. Senator Chafee. I take it that your organization is headquartered in Tucson? Ms. Udall. That is correct. Senator Chafee. What other sources of revenue, outside of-- I'm not even sure of what your sources of revenue are. Start with the Federal Government. Ms. Udall. The Federal Government in the initial legislation gave $20 million to the Foundation as their corpus, and the Foundation has very strict laws that regulate how the money can be spent. We spend the interest off the corpus. The Congress just approved another $4.25 million. The legislation also gives us the opportunity to raise private funds if we wish, which we have not pursued as a Foundation, but I think at one point we will look at that as a possibility. Senator Chafee. I would encourage you to do that, because I think that there is going to be a feeling that if there is no private support for one of these undertakings--and we have several of them, as you have mentioned here; indeed, I thought there would have been more than you listed. You mentioned the Truman, Madison, and Goldwater Foundations. I would have thought there would be more than that. I thought we did one for Sam Nunn. But in any event, I think that the attitude is going to be that ``it's time each tub stood on its own bottom'' to the greatest extent possible, and if there is no public support for such an Institute or Foundation, then why should the Federal Government continue doing it solely? Ms. Udall. The Board is very, very aware of the issue that you have raised. I think in our first couple of years we felt a very strong commitment to make an impact and to do some good things with the money. I also agree with you that we will be looking at and pursuing other sources of support. Senator Chafee. Good. You know, it's amazing; there's a lot of money out there. There is. There is money rolling around in this country that astonishes you. Some humble-seeming person that you never suspected will walk in and plunk down a million dollars. Now, I'm not saying that these things are lying around and all you have to do is bend over and pick them up, but it is astonishing, the money that can be raised. Senator Baucus. Senator Baucus. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I might say, you might try to grab it now before the stock market takes a dip. [Laughter.] Senator Baucus. I am particularly interested in conflict resolution. Could you tell us what you are doing and what lessons you have learned that could be applied elsewhere in environmental disputes? Ms. Udall. Right now, Senator Baucus, the Conflict Resolution Center has really been in the process of defining its role and really looking at how it is going to be a broker for other Federal agencies. I think one of the things that we're learning is that once you get people to the table, you can often find common ground, and it's about really encouraging people that there is a benefit to talking about something before you look at litigation. Senator Baucus. Now, do you make yourselves available for various disputes? Ms. Udall. Yes. The law states that Federal agencies must use us before they move to litigation, and then we will also make ourselves available to other people as a broker for services. We will engage in some mediation, but our primary responsibility is to help agencies and other groups that are in disagreement to find people who can help them mediate. Senator Baucus. Can you give us an example of where you've jumped in and helped? Ms. Udall. Yes. Right now we're looking for perhaps a national case or two to take on, but one that we did get involved in was actually in Arizona. We helped mediate some work over the placement of a building and how it would impact on the owl population. There were a number of agencies in the Arizona area that were particularly deadlocked, so the Institute helped pull together some folks to talk about it and to really see if we could resolve that. Senator Baucus. Do you get at all involved in undertakings to start even earlier, sort of work with groups to prevent conflicts from arising in the first place? Ms. Udall. One of the big pieces--and the Board right now is really sort of fleshing out how we want to make an impact, because it is such a growing area and there is such great need--but one of the areas that we are putting a lot of attention on is the actual training of folks in conflict mediation who are involved, so that before it even gets to the point of litigation, people realize that there are tools available to them and how they might reach consensus. Senator Baucus. Again, can you give an example? Ms. Udall. I don't have any examples of the training we have provided, although I do know that that will be a major focus for us over the next 2 years. Senator Baucus. Now, is your charter for conflict resolution broad? Is it narrow? What I'm getting at is this. We have a highway problem in Montana---- [Laughter.] Ms. Udall. Bring it on, right? Senator Baucus. Right. It is Highway 93, and it is very heavily traveled. It is a very scenic part of Montana. It goes through a Salish-Kootenai Reservation, a Flathead Reservation, and the Federal Government, the Federal Highway Administration, the State, and the tribe are trying to figure out what to do with this highway. We all know there's going to be a highway, we just don't know what the design is going to be. So I will give them your name. [Laughter.] Ms. Udall. We are ready. As an outsider to all of this, when this issue was first raised and we pulled together a lot of people, I was astounded at the sort of ``family conflicts'' that arise just among Government agencies. It was astounding to me. So it is very much part of our vision to work in situations like you described. Give them Terry's name and Chris' name. [Laughter.] Senator Baucus. OK. Well, if you get a phone call, you will know where it came from. Ms. Udall. That's great. Senator Baucus. OK, thank you. Senator Chafee. I know Senator McCain was very anxious to be here to introduce you, Dr. Udall, and regrettably he couldn't be here, but I want to officially say that I am sure he regrets a great deal that he couldn't be here. Ms. Udall. Thank you. Senator Chafee. OK, that concludes it. We thank you, and we want to move along with this nomination rapidly. Ms. Udall. Thank you very much, Senator. [Whereupon, at 9:58 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.] Statement of Gary S. Guzy, Nominated to be General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is a great honor to be here today and to have been nominated by the President and asked by Administrator Browner to serve as General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that now is an opportune time to be taking on the challenges of serving as EPA's General Counsel for several reasons: First, EPA today is a fundamentally different organization that is reconnected to communities and the American people--helping make a difference in the issues people face in their everyday lives. EPA no longer is ``the crucible of everyone's discontent'', as it was once referred to in the past. It has become the crucible of hope. Whether it be the child who suffers from asthma, or the family that lives near a river too polluted for fishing or swimming, our Nation still has much to do to protect the health of its citizens and its environment. As I go about my work, I think back to my early childhood--living in Newark, New Jersey, with my mother, a single parent and a dedicated public school teacher. From it I recognize that a government that is caring and honest and open can make a difference in the lives of ordinary citizens. I look to my own two small children and recognize the importance of the work we are embarked on together, to assure them a healthy future and the continued enjoyment of our Nation's legendary natural bounty that has been so important throughout my life. Second, I am hopeful we are again entering a time of basic agreement on the tasks that are to be done to advance public health and environmental protection. The pendulum has done some swinging back and forth now for many years, but I now sense a more fundamental agreement on the important work that we all have to do together to continue the bipartisan accomplishments of the past 30 years. As the public health and environmental statutes have matured, we must keep their overall goals and framework in mind as we apply the law to new situations in fresh ways. These developments will continue to challenge us, and will demand balance, common sense, and judgment. If confirmed, I look forward to a close cooperative relationship with the Committee and its staff in carrying out this work. I have been privileged over the last several years to have worked with Administrator Browner, who with her senior leadership team, has demonstrated an uncompromising commitment to the protection of public health and the environment, accomplished through creative means that provide unprecedented flexibility to communities and industry. This approach has continued to demonstrate that our economy and our environment are inextricably linked and that a strong economy and a healthy environment are twin and compatible goals that must drive our actions. In the course of this work, I have had the opportunity to work with several members of this committee and their staffs on many issues of shared interest. These include working to protect children from the threat of environmental tobacco smoke and helping to insure the future of the Everglades. These efforts have required the careful and respectful coordination of activities in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. When I think of some of the major issues EPA will face over the next several years, I am struck by how central lawyering will continue to be to the success of these efforts. Whether it be new efforts to apply more broadly the lessons learned from reinvention, or EPA's setting of new tailpipe emissions and sulfur in fuels standards; or our implementation of the protections for children of the new Food Quality Protection Act, or new chemical testing initiatives being developed with industry and the environmental community; whether it be meeting the challenge of the responsible collection, use and dissemination of information, or EPA's work under the Clean Water Action Plan to address non-point source pollution--all of these challenges will demand the best from our Nation's premier environmental law firm. I am delighted to be rejoining a group that is as talented, creative, dedicated, and hardworking as the career staff at EPA's Office of General Counsel. They have an expertise in environmental law that is unmatched. I recognize that EPA's currency with Congress, the courts, and the public is its credibility, and that much of this rests with the objectivity and integrity of the work of the Agency's Office of General Counsel. I look forward to continuing the great traditions of that office and to this opportunity for continued public service. I also know--from my career in the private practice of environmental law representing private industry and States, and then from my work at the Department of Justice and at EPA representing the Federal Government--that keeping an open mind and being attentive to absolute fairness of process for all affected parties are also essential to the ultimate success of our work. When I clerked for Judge Elbert Tuttle--who had by then served as a Federal Circuit Court judge for 30 years, following his already long and distinguished career in private practice and the military--it so impressed me that he was vitally interested in my relatively uninformed views. This openness of thinking--this reaching out to hear all perspectives, no matter how long or hard we have been immersed in an issue--is critical to improving the quality of EPA's analysis and of its decisions. Also critical is maintaining the highest of ethical standards. These are values that, if confirmed, I will strive to take to my job every day, and to continue to build in our staff. I will also work tirelessly to ensure that we create a seamless web of consultation with our agency clients by early work to help identify sound legal approaches to carrying out the Agency's mission. I want to build on the capacity for innovative, not purely reactive, counseling. And I recognize that the EPA's General Counsel has the rare luxury of a vantage point that cuts across all of the Agency's work--providing an important perspective and means for integrating disparate agency activities. I wish you could have joined me several weeks ago when I went door- to-door at EPA's offices to meet the staff of the Office of General Counsel. The excitement of our lawyers at working for the public on the issues EPA confronts every day is palpable and invigorating. It is a joy to see. But it also creates a deep responsibility to lead this group wisely, as does the responsibility of ensuring that our Nation's environmental laws are faithfully carried out. These are public trusts that, if confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you to continue to ensure. I would 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> Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, May 7, 1999. The Honorable John Chafee, Chairman United States Senate Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter completes our response to the two requests for information that Senator Inhofe made during the March 4, 1999 hearing on the nomination of Gary Guzy for the position of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) General Counsel and that you clarified in a letter dated March 10, 1999. It supplements the partial responses we sent you on March 15. First Request In your first request, you and Senator Inhofe asked for: a list, covering the last ten years, of all grants to individuals or organizations (except States and local governments) that have also sued the Agency, including pending litigation. Please include the amount and purpose of the grant, and the relevant dates for the grants and the lawsuits. In discussions with Chad Bradley of Senator Inhofe's staff on March 19, Mr. Bradley clarified that grants to Tribal governments, as well as State and local governments, are excluded from this request.' In response to your request, we are enclosing a list of non- governmental individuals and organizations that received grants from EPA from January 1, 1989 to March 31, 1999 and that also sued EPA during that period. For each grant received by these individuals and organizations during the January 1, 1989-March 31, 1999 period, we have identified the amount of the grant. Although your request does not cover governmental entities, EPA has been sued on many occasions by States, local governments, and tribes that have received EPA grants. the purpose of the grant, the date the grant was awarded, and the date of the project. In a separate list, we have identified the filing dates of the lawsuits brought by these entities against EPA. Our response to this request was prepared by cross-checking a Department of Justice computerized list of all the parties in all the cases filed against EPA since January 1, 1989 against a computerized list of EPA grant recipients from FY 1989 to the present. After we identified those grant recipients that were also parties in lawsuits against EPA, we cross-checked that list against the computerized case list, and came up with a list of cases brought by EPA grantees. We encountered a number of challenges trying to ensure accurate results. For example, quite a few of the over 3500 names on the case list were incomplete, and we had difficulty matching them up with the names on our grants list (and vice versa). The case list identified lead plaintiffs and lead petitioners, but did not indicate the party status of other listed parties. We tried to clarify some of this information by checking paper files, but the files were sometimes incomplete, particularly for older cases. In short, while we believe the enclosed lists are reasonably accurate and complete, it is possible that they may contain some errors or omissions. We also want to bring one other issue to your attention. In a number of situations involving related corporate entities or chapters of national non-profit organizations, we had difficulty determining whether the entity that sued us was the entity that received a grant. For example, EPA has been sued by Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc. We do not know whether this company is part of Texaco, Inc., which received a grant from us, or is a separate corporate entity. Where we were able to sort out these types of relationships, we have done so. Where we were unable to do so, we have taken the conservative approach of listing all grantees and all litigants. This may overstate, however, the number of litigants who received EPA grants. You should be aware that every EPA grant agreement is conditioned on compliance with OMB Circulars that prohibit the use of grant funds for suits against the Government. Specifically, they prohibit ``costs of legal, accounting, and consultant services, and related costs, incurred in connection with ... the prosecution of claims or appeals against the Federal Government'' (OMB Circular No. A-122, Attachment B. Section 10.g, which applies to nonprofit organizations; same provision in Circular No. A-21, Section J. 1 l.g, which applies to educational institutions) and ``legal expenses for prosecution of claims against the Federal Government'' (Circular No. A-87, Attachment B. Section 14.b, which applies to State, local, and tribal governments). In addition, EPA's appropriation acts provide that grant funds may not be used ``to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings.'' In addition, there are numerous administrative checks to assure that these requirements are met. EPA carefully reviews all grant applications and does not approve applications which indicate that grant funds are to be used for litigation. Every grant agreement expressly states that the agreement is subject to all applicable legal requirements, including statutes and OMB circulars such as the ones cited above. At the time a grant is closed out, the grantee must certify that grant funds have been spent consistent with the grant agreement. If EPA disagrees, it may disallow the expenditures. Furthermore, if the grantee knowingly falsifies this certification, it is subject to criminal penalties. Finally, improper expenditures may be identified either through EPA's oversight of grant agreements or through the Inspector General's audit of particular grant agreements. Second Request In his original second request, Senator Inhofeasked for ``a list of all parties to any 'consent agreements' that the EPA entered into over the last six years.'' He also asked us to provide ``a description of what was agreed to in the consent agreements, and which parties were present during the negotiations.'' On the afternoons of March 4 and 5, Mr. Bradley clarified that this request (1) was limited to non- governmental parties and does not include states, tribes, and local governments, (2) was limited to consent orders in defensive litigation and does not cover consent orders in enforcement litigation or settlement agreements, and (3) covered a ten-year period. On March 15, we sent you and Senator Inhofe and Senator Baucus, a table responding to your request as we understood it. After we sent you this information, we received your March 10 letter, which further clarified the request as follows: I would like a list of all parties to any ``consent agreements,'' ``settlement agreements,'' or related matters that the EPA entered into over the last ten years, including pending litigation. Please include a description of what was agreed to in the consent agreements, and which parties were present during the negotiations. In a March 19 discussion, Mr. Bradley clarified that (1) this request is limited to consent orders and settlement agreements in defensive litigation and does not cover consent orders or settlement agreements in enforcement litigation, (2) the reference to pending litigation means that the list should include consent agreements and settlement agreements in pending (as well as closed) cases, and (3) the reference to ``related matters'' means that the list should include any court document that has the same effect as a consent order or settlement agreement. Enclosed are two tables containing the information you requested, plus information on the basis for the consent orders and settlement agreements. Because some of the EPA attorneys who worked on the older consent orders and settlement agreements are no longer employed by the Agency and because some of our older litigation files contain limited information, we had some difficulty assembling the information you requested for some of our older cases2. We believe, however, that the enclosed tables are reasonably accurate and complete. 2 For a few of our older cases, we have been unable to identify a case number or other pertinent infonnation about the case. Please note that virtually all the orders in the enclosed consent order table merely establish court deadlines for EPA actions that are required by statute and do not dictate the content of those actions. Where they involve a commitment to undertake rulemaking, EPA's actions would be subject to the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Like all consent orders, each of these orders was reviewed at a high level within the Department of Justice and by a court to ensure that it was fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. In addition, it is the policy of the Department of Justice that the United States not consent to court orders which contain provisions for injunctive relief which could not be ordered by a court unilaterally. Finally, you should be aware that Section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to provide notice of and opportunity to comment on defensive consent orders under the Clean Air Act before they are final or filed with a court, a practice to which EPA carefully adheres. The settlement agreements generally fall into three main categories: (1) agreements to resolve challenges to Agency rulemaking, in which EPA agrees to conduct further rulemaking or studies or to issue guidance on or otherwise clarify some aspect of the rule, (2) agreements to resolve disputes involving the payment of money (e.g., requests for attorneys' fees, takings claims, claims for reimbursement of response costs under Superfund), and (3) agreements to resolve allegations of Agency inaction, in which EPA agrees to take action by a date certain or to take actions which will contribute to the timely resolution of a matter. Like consent orders, rulemaking undertaken under these agreements would be subject to the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the agreements themselves are reviewed by the Department of Justice and a court. We believe this responds fully to the requests you and Senator Inhofe made on March 4 and 10. If you need additional information on this matter, however, we would be pleased to provide it. Sincerely, Diane E. Thompson, Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. <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> <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> <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> Statement by Anne J. Udall, Vice-Chair, Morris K. Udall Foundation Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased and honored to be nominated for another term on the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. Since the Foundation's beginning 4 years ago, I have had the privilege of serving on the Foundation as the vice-chair. In the past 4 years we have proudly carried on the vision of a man who has been a great public servant. Today is particularly poignant for me as his colleagues and my family will honor Dad at a memorial service he loved, the U.S. Congress. There has been much that has been said about Dad over the years, but President Clinton summed up his contributions to our country when awarding Dad the Medal of Freedom: His landmark achievements, such as reforming campaign finance, preserving our forests, safeguarding the Alaskan Wilderness and defending the rights of Native Americans, were important indeed. But he distinguished himself above all as a man to whom others--leaders--would turn for judgment, skill and wisdom. Mo Udall is truly a man for all seasons and a role model for what is best in American democracy. Senators will recall that the Udall Foundation is both similar to and different from its predecessors in the Federal family: the Truman, Madison, and Goldwater Foundations. We are similar in that we are educational entities that award college scholarships, fellowships and internships, to further public goals. The Udall Foundation's focuses are the environment and Native American affairs. We differ in that our Foundation was given a broader mandate than the others. Congress also told us to do policy work in the areas of Native American health care and environmental conflict resolution, to hold annual conferences on important national issues and to work with the Udall Center at the University of Arizona to general new research in our fields. The Foundation, in carrying on Dad's legacy, is dedicated to civility integrity, and consensus. Since our establishment, we have accomplished the following: <bullet> The Foundation has awarded 220 scholarships to college juniors and seniors--planning careers in the environment or Native American health care. Interest in Udall scholarships has grown rapidly, and today more than 1,430t colleges and universities participate. The demand is such that the Board would like to raise the annual number of awards from 75 to 100 and the stipend from $5,000 to $7,500. <bullet> We have initiated the first Native American Congressional internship program. This year we graduated and sent back to their tribes the third class of Udall interns with an enriched knowledge of Congress and the executive branch. Congressional interns, all of whom are college graduates, are split evenly between Republican and Democratic offices; three slots have been made available at the White House. Interns are lodged at George Washington University and are provided a per diem and, upon successful completion of the program, a stipend of $1,200. The program also provides regular counseling, travel to historical sites, and special meetings with national leaders. The evidence, thus far suggests that our graduates are having a dramatic impact on their tribes. <bullet> The Foundation has begun a program to support top doctoral candidates in their dissertation years. Last year, we began authorizing the gift of $24,000 each to two of the Nation's leading graduate students after a national competition. The first year was judged a success, yielding two potentially publishable theses covering new ground in environmental research. The Board has decided to continue the program this year and expand it over time as our financial resources grow. <bullet> We have sponsored two widely reported national conferences on environmental issues, and a third conference last October on Native American health care. <bullet> The Foundation has conducted extensive preliminary planning for a program that will begin this year called ``Parks in Focus.'' The cooperation with the Boys and Girls Clubs, the National Park Service and two private concerns, Cannon and Kodak, we will take inner-city children into our national parks for long weekends. They will be given cameras and will engage in photography contests. Their photos then will be displayed in their schools. This effort with grade school children will supplement our educational programs which focus on college and graduate students. <bullet> Finally, we have undertaken a searching analysis of the methods of environmental conflict resolution and its possible use by Federal agencies. The Foundation's efforts included convening a large national conference on the subject and conducting simulations to test negotiating methods. <bullet> This research led to a request by Senator John McCain that the Foundation undertake a formal role as the Federal mediator in environmental disputes. In consultation with the White House, Senator McCain introduced S. 399, which was subsequently approved by the final Senate and House and signed by President Clinton in January of this year. The law creates within the Udall Foundation a new Federal entity known as the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. <bullet> The institute will be located with the Foundation in Tucson, providing a neutral site within the Federal establishment but outside the ``Beltway'' where public and private interests can seek common ground and settle environmental disputes. The Institute is intended to give yet another boost to the growing environmental conflict resolution movement to move away from a period of confrontation and litigation to a new area where we follow Mo Udall's lead and strive for consensus. I am hopeful that the Committee can see the great work the Foundation has undertaken and is continuing to pursue. For me personally, as Mo's daughter and as an American who is committed to public service in my own life, serving on the Board of Trustees has been a very special honor for me. Over the past several years, as Dad struggled daily with the trials of Parkinson's disease, I have had a great deal of pride and satisfaction knowing that in some small way I was able to carry on his great work I would very much appreciate the opportunity to continue to serve on the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. <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> Office of Hon. Jim Kolbe, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 1, 1999. Hon. John Chafee, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: It gives me great pleasure to relay my support for the re-nomination of Anne Udall as Vice Chairwoman of the Morris K. Udall Foundation Board of Trustees. I have known Anne for years, and she has done a remarkable job as a trustee for the Foundation. She is a sincere, dedicated and committed member of this organization. The struggle to resolve environmental issues seems to be a never-ending task Nevertheless, people like Anne Udall have taken it upon themselves to solve these problems by bringing all parties together to communicate their needs and values so that, in the end, everyone walks away a winner. I appreciate your committee's work in this area. Under your guidance, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has shown the fairness and thoughtfulness, which we all strive to achieve. Sincerely, Jim Kolbe, Member of Congress. <greek-d>