| Introduction
This
questionnaire is designed to elicit your responses and your ideas
regarding what environmental groups consider to be the most
important environmental issues of the day. In some cases, we refer
to certain bills or environmental positions, which are before the
Congress or the Executive at this time. We want to hear your views
on these issues. Where you disagree with the position as stated or
implied by the question, we want to hear your views on these goals
and how they can be reached by alternative means.
Natural
Resources and Public Lands
1. Public Lands
This nation's 630 million acres of
public land are a resource enjoyed by Americans today, and are a
natural heritage legacy for future generations. These public lands
include America's parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Wilderness areas are
protected within all four management systems.
1a. What is your vision for the future management of America's
public lands?
Public lands are a national asset and need to serve
the public's interests. They should be managed sustainably, in a
way that protects those resources and ensures that they will be
there for future generations. 1b. What is your vision
for the nation's remaining unprotected wildlands?
America's remaining wild lands are one of our most
treasured resources. Before opening lands to various new uses, we
should evaluate whether there are substitute lands already
developed which can serve the same purpose. It makes little sense
to subject unique areas, such as the lands of southern Utah, to
resource development when there are other, less pristine, lands
which can be used instead. This is one reason I led a filibuster
in the Senate to block a Utah lands giveaway bill. This effort
helped lead to the eventual protection of the spectacular
resources of the Escalante-Grand Staircase region. I am also proud
of my efforts to preserve Sterling Forest on the NY-NJ border, one
of the last unspoiled areas in the NY--NJ metropolitan
area. 1c. Would you support designating the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge as a wilderness area, to put it permanently
off limits to oil and gas development?
Yes. I have long supported making the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge a wilderness area. In addition, I have fought to
protect the refuge from oil drilling. 1d. Would you
support a moratorium on new road construction and logging in the
roadless and undeveloped portions of our national forests?
Yes. I fought for years against subsidies for sales of
federal timber, to reduce timber harvesting in the Tongass Forest
in Alaska, and co-sponsored an amendment in 1996 to end logging in
ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest. 2.
Wildlife
The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, provides
protection for threatened and endangered species of plants and
animals. The law preserves these species for their own sake, and
serves to maintain the overall health of larger natural systems
necessary for the preservation of other species. Critics claim the
law unduly restricts private property rights and interferes with
reasonable economic development of land. Others say the ESA should
provide incentives, like tax breaks, for private landowners to
encourage them to help save imperiled species.
2a. Do you support the goal of this law?
Yes. Our rich biological diversity is part of the
heritage we must preserve and protect for future generations.
While the Endangered Species Act is an important tool for
protecting that heritage, it cannot do the job by itself. The ESA,
together with other environmental laws and regulations, has helped
the recovery of important species (such as the eagle, the
peregrine falcon and gray wolf), but it has not given private
landowners sufficient reason to manage their lands in ways that
benefit endangered plant and animal species. As a result,
endangered and threatened species on private lands are faring
worse than those on public lands. 2b. Do you believe
that current efforts need to be strengthened to better recover our
declining plants and wildlife?
Yes. We need to find ways to spur creation and
enforcement of effective plans, starting earlier, before species
are virtually extinct. 2c. How, if at all, would you
propose to modify the law in regard to its application to private
landowners?
We need to target effective programs, such as the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, to maximize protection
and restoration of fragile ecosystems. We need to find ways to
help landowners undertake the kinds of active management that are
often required to help the actual recovery of
species. 3. Oceans
Conservation of the ocean's
resources, particularly fisheries management, has never achieved the
same priority as other environmental initiatives. Management of
fisheries within the United States 200 mile economic zone is
governed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Act
was amended and strengthened by Congress in 1996 but NMFS remains
underfunded and slow to implement change necessary to protect
declining populations of fish.
3a. Do you support reversing declining fish populations and
rebuilding overfished fisheries even if this results in adverse
short-term economic impacts?
Yes. Habitat destruction, over fishing, coastal
development, water pollution, and introduction of alien species
have caused fish stocks to collapse around the world. We need to
manage fisheries in ways that support restoration of balanced
ecosystems. Healthy fisheries are in everyone's interest. While
the federal government must recognize and help communities adjust
to reduced fishing targets, without a precautionary approach to
fishery management, there will be no healthy fisheries in the
future. This would be a tragedy for those communities and the
environment. One of the laws of which I am most proud, the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act, set a path for restoration of
important fishery habitats, including the San Francisco
Bay-Delta. 4. Mining
Currently, minerals are
extracted from public lands by mining operations under the Mining
Law of 1872. The 1872 law makes mining a dominant use over wildlife
protection, water quality, and other land uses. It provides few
environmental protections and levies meager fees, resulting in
environmental damage to the lands, little return to the public for
the loss of public resources, and unreclaimed, sometimes toxic,
mining wastes.
4a. Would you support comprehensive reform for this law to
ensure a more appropriate fee structure, to require companies to
clean up sites, and to provide the land managing agencies discretion
to determine the suitability of mineral development with other land
uses and values?
Yes. I have long supported reform of the 1872 Mining
Law. I worked with Senator Bumpers, both in the Senate Energy
Committee and on the Senate floor, to reform regulation of mining
on federal lands. In the 125 years since the law was enacted, we
have gained greater understanding of the environmental
consequences of mining operations and the funds needed for clean
up. The only thing that hasn't changed is the law governing mining
on public lands. It is unfortunate that the Department of
Interior's efforts to hold mining companies responsible for the
damage they have caused to the environment were blocked by
Congress with the Administration's assent.
Back
to Top
Global Warming;
Energy, Transportation, and Land Use
5. Global Warming
Global warming is the most
far-reaching environmental problem our civilization has ever faced.
The hottest 10 years on record have occurred since 1980 culminating
in 1998, the hottest year ever recorded. The world's leading
scientists warn that if the nations of the world fail to cut
greenhouse gas emissions, we are likely to commit the world to
massive irreversible damage-rising sea levels, crop damage,
heat-related deaths, mass extinction of species and the spread of
infectious diseases.
The U.S., with 4% of the world's population, is the largest
emitter of gases that cause global warming; it is responsible for
contributing over 23% of world carbon dioxide emissions. Two- thirds
of the U.S. carbon dioxide pollution comes from transportation and
energy generation. Improving energy efficiency and increasing use of
renewable energy can reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner.
5a. Do you support efforts to implement and strengthen an U.S.
emissions reduction program as called for in the Kyoto Global
Warming Protocol?
Yes. We need to confront the threat of ever-increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and we must
do so without further delay. I support the Kyoto Protocols as an
important first step. The US is the largest emitter of greenhouse
gases and we must show leadership in significantly reducing our
emission of these gases. I believe that if corporations were given
incentives for taking voluntary actions, even in advance of treaty
ratification, it could help reverse our increasing levels of
greenhouse gas emissions. Government actions should support
achievement of climate stabilization as quickly as
possible. 6. Energy efficiency
Automobiles are
responsible for 20% of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. One way to
reduce this pollution is for our vehicles to use fuel more
efficiently. Because of an exception in the current vehicle fuel
efficiency laws, light trucks such a minivans and sport utility
vehicles (SUVs), which account for nearly half of all new cars sold,
are permitted 25% lower fuel economy standards (20.7 miles per
gallon) than passenger cars (27.5 mpg). Fuel economy standards have
not been significantly modified since the 1980's.
6a. Would you support a policy, phased in over 5 years,
requiring light trucks to meet the same fuel economy standards as
passenger vehicles?
Yes. I support the extension of passenger car fuel
economy standards to light trucks and Sport Utility
Vehicles. 6b. Would you support legislation
increasing fuel economy standards such that the fleet average
(including cars, SUVs, mini-vans and other light trucks) reaches 42
miles per gallon over the next 10 years? If not, what other means of
reducing transportation-related emissions would you support?
Mobile sources can and should do more to reduce their
contribution to air pollution. Thanks to the requirements of the
Clean Air Act and CAFE, today's cars are far cleaner and more fuel
efficient than those of the past. CAFE standards have been
important in achieving that goal and should continue to improve
over time. People are driving more and keeping their cars much
longer, thus unintentionally eroding much of the environmental
benefit of the reforms we have made in the last 20 years. We need
new strategies to get car owners to get old clunkers off the road
since they contribute disproportionately to pollution and to
encourage the production and use of cleaner cars. Americans want
and expect the freedom to be able to meet their transportation
needs. We need to support efforts that improve mobility for
everyone but do so in less environmentally damaging ways. I
support the new ambient air quality standards adopted by EPA and
the efforts to reduce levels of NOx. I also believe that states
should be held accountable for meeting air quality standards,
including the need to offset pollution increases from major new
development, but I would give states flexibility in how these new
protective standards are achieved. I believe that protective
standards, rigorously enforced with flexibility in implementation,
rewards innovation, reduces costs of compliance, and improves
cooperation and compliance. 7. Power
plants
The electric power industry is the nation's largest
source of air pollution. Power plants are also the largest source of
carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming.
7a. Would you support legislation limiting power plant
emissions of carbon dioxide? Are there other ways you would address
this problem?
Yes. These old plants must do more to meet modem
standards. We can't keep extending their exemptions from
compliance standards indefinitely. All sectors, not just power
plants, need to get involved in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
There must be vigorous enforcement of the standards to ensure they
are actually achieved. 8. Nuclear
waste
Nuclear waste is lethal. Environmental groups believe
that federal nuclear policies must be based on science and that the
protection of public health is paramount. Currently, the nuclear
power industry is backing legislation that would allow the
transportation of nuclear waste from power plants around the country
to Nevada prior to an Energy Department determination whether to
permanently store the waste there. The legislation would pre-empt
many federal, state and local laws and weaken radiation protection
standards.
8a. Do you oppose transporting nuclear waste until there is a
scientifically sound, permanent, licensed solution to the waste
problem?
Generally yes, although there may be a need to move
some waste earlier for reasons of safety or lack of space. I am
generally supportive of Congressional action which may eliminate
the need to move waste twice, once to the interim site and then to
the permanent repository. 8b. How would you improve
security at the places nuclear waste is now stored?
If the Congress enacts a new Nuclear Waste bill in the
next few years, it is likely to contain provisions extending the
period during which waste is stored at reactor sites throughout
the country. Currently, local communities are given little say
regarding how waste is stored as well as other safety
considerations. Security issues need local input. 8c.
Do you oppose weakening of environmental and public health laws
regarding nuclear waste disposition?
Yes. I do not support efforts (including the one
recently approved by the Senate Energy Committee) to strip the
Environmental Protection Agency of the authority to set radiation
standards. 9. Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power
plants now supply about 20% of U.S. electric energy. While the
nuclear industry argues that nuclear power should be seen as a
solution to global warming, nuclear power plants are inherently
subject to serious accidents, and could be a source of material for
nuclear weapons. Additionally, there is no known way to deal with
their radioactive wastes.
9a. If nuclear power's share of electricity generation
decreases, what mix of energy sources would replace it?
I support the widest possible mix of energy sources,
including gains in energy efficiency in order to reduce our
dependence on insecure sources of fuel, and to reduce emissions of
carbon dioxide and conventional pollutants. 10.
Sprawl
Many Americans now consider suburban sprawl --
low-density, automobile dependent development beyond the edge of
service and employment areas -- to be a fast growing and obvious
threat to their local environment. Suburban sprawl is contributing
to the loss of farms, forests, wildlife habitat, wetlands, open
space and water quality. Longer commutes and increased traffic
congestion causes air pollution. State and local governments are
beginning to pursue sprawl-fighting, smart growth strategies.
10a. What role should the federal government play in helping
communities address this fast-growing threat to their quality of
life and environment?
The most important thing the federal government can do
to address sprawl is to stop making the problem worse. A large
number of unrelated governmental programs and decisions have
inadvertently caused the development of previously undeveloped
areas and worsened sprawl. Federal decisions and federal funding
have often sent the wrong signals. In addition, we must also
ensure that decisions on siting of new federal facilities take
environmental as well as economic impacts into
account. 10b. Would you support changing federal
policies and funding priorities that contribute to or encourage
suburban sprawl? For example, would you support providing a greater
portion of the Highway Trust Fund into alternative transportation
choices rather than highway construction and expansion?
I continue to support adequate funding for mass
transit, including equalizing federal tax preferences for
commuting by mass transit and by auto. I have also supported
equalizing the level of support for highway maintenance,
construction, and mass transit, giving states and localities the
ability to meet local needs. We should ensure the quality of life
in developed areas by supporting adequate parkland and access to
them by all parts of communities. 10c. Would you
support federal tax incentives to help local communities set aside
open space, protect water quality, and clean up abandoned industrial
sites in urban areas? What other measures would you support to
address these problems?
As an early supporter of Urban Enterprise Zones, I
recognize that the best way to avoid sprawl is to revitalize our
cities, bringing jobs to where people are already living. We must
also redevelop brownfields in ways that increase livability of
cities. Better America Bonds can play a role in this
effort.
Back
to Top
International
11. Global Population
World population is increasing by
80 million people per year. Continued human population growth causes
or aggravates virtually all environmental problems including
deforestation, extinction of species through habitat loss, land
degradation, global warming, air pollution, water quality and
quantity supplies. Since many areas have already exceeded their
carrying capacity, population stabilization is an essential element
in addressing the present and future crises. The U.S. participates
in global population efforts by contributing to the United Nations
Population Fund for family planning programs in many countries. By
law, no U.S. foreign assistance funds may be used to provide
abortion services.
11a. Do you support funding the U.S. portion of international
population assistance necessary to achieve universal access to
contraception by the year 2015?
Yes. Empowering women through access to education,
economic development, and health services, including family
planning services, has been shown to build democratic
institutions, and lower poverty and population. 12.
Trade
The North American Free Trade Agreement and the World
Trade Organization discipline domestic and international law in
order to promote international trade and investment. Dispute panels
under these agreements have ruled against a number of environmental
and health laws, including clean gasoline standards, sea turtle
protections, and food safety standards. In order to comply with the
rulings, governments may weaken laws or regulations. In other
instances, the U.S. government has proactively weakened
environmental standards to comply with international trade rules.
For example, the U.S. has established weak standards to control
imported tree and fruit pests in order to avoid trade conflicts.
12a. Would you support changing international trade rules to
prevent the weakening of public health and environmental laws?
Yes. I support an open trading system because I
believe it is the best means to promote economic growth in both
the US and other countries. At the same time, the trade
institutions as well as agreements have too long failed to harness
that power to improve both environmental standards and protect
worker rights. At a minimum, existing environmental and labor
standards should not be weakened by the trade agreements. However,
I think we can do much better than that. I believe that the US
should include these important issues in future trade
negotiations. 12b. Would you support increasing
congressional oversight and public involvement in trade negotiations
to better ensure that future trade agreements protect public health
and the environment?
Yes. Greater transparency and public participation are
important ways to improve the trade institutions. 13.
Biodiversity
There is a consensus among the world's leading
scientists that one of the greatest long-term threats to human
welfare is the loss of species and their natural habitat,
collectively resulting in the massive loss of biological diversity.
The International Convention on Biological Diversity was negotiated
in 1992 to help provide for a coordinated international effort to
deal with biodiversity loss problems. The Convention has been
ratified by essentially every western country except the United
States, in spite of the fact that the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations overwhelmingly approved ratification.
13a. Will you work to persuade the Senate to ratify the
Convention?
I support ratification of the treaty and will work to
achieve that goal.
Back
to Top
Pollution and
Public Health
14. Clean Water
Runoff from farm fields, animal
feedlots and city streets is our largest remaining source of surface
water pollution. Over 60% of our water pollution problems today are
from "polluted runoff," yet the Clean Water Act does not adequately
address this source of pollution.
14a. As President, would you support and promote legislation
to address this problem through enforceable new Clean Water Act
requirements for use of best management practices and the best
available technology, instead of through the current voluntary
program?
Voluntary action has significantly reduced nonpoint
sources of pollution. We need to look at a wide range of solutions
and incentives for cleaning up runoff from farms, city streets,
construction and other sources. We also need to address water
pollution caused by large feedlot operations whose waste often
exceeds that of the largest cities in a state, and harm the
ability of family farmers to survive economically. I support
Senator Harkin's legislation in this area. I have also sponsored
legislation to help municipalities fund upgrades of sewage
treatment plants to deal with non-point
pollution. 15. Wetlands
Wetlands - the
marshes, bogs, bottom land hardwoods and estuarine areas where water
meets land - act as nature's water filters and as sponges that help
prevent flooding. Our nation has lost over half its original
wetlands and continues to lose over 100,000 acres of wetlands each
year.
15a. How would you act to reverse the steady erosion of this
natural resource?
I support a policy of no net loss of wetlands.
Wetlands perform many valuable services for the environment and
the economy, including flood protection, fish breeding areas and
water filtration that protects public water
supplies. 16. Clean Air
According to the
American Lung Association, at least 117 million people live in areas
where it is unhealthy to breathe the air due to ozone or smog
pollution. During the 1998 smog season, there were more than 5200
violations of EPA's health standard for smog in 41 states across the
country. The elderly, children and people with asthma are especially
vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Scientists estimate that
40,000 Americans die prematurely each year because of fine particle
pollution, or soot. The electric power industry is the nation's
largest source of air pollution. Electric power plants produce one
third of the nitrogen pollution that causes smog, and two thirds of
the sulfur pollution that forms fine-particulate matter, acid rain
and haze. Power plants also produce mercury, which contaminates
lakes and streams.
16a. Do you support comprehensive additional efforts to make
our air cleaner, including EPA's more protective revised air quality
standards for ozone and fine particles, tighter pollution standards
for cars and SUVs, controls on mercury emissions from coal-burning
power plants, and requirements to reduce regional haze?
Yes. I support additional efforts to ensure that all
Americans breathe healthful air. I feel that recent federal court
decisions challenging Clean Air regulations are unfortunate and
hope they are overturned on appeal. Too many Americans still live
in areas with unhealthy air almost 30 years after the passage of
the Clean Air Act. We can do better. 16b. Would you
support legislation to require all power plants, irrespective of
age, to meet modern air pollution standards for nitrogen and
sulfur?
Yes. As we move to restructure the electric utility
industry, we should ensure that all power plants do their share to
contribute to cleaner air for all communities. 17.
Food Safety/ Pesticides
In 1996, Congress enacted the Food
Quality Protection Act to assure that America's food supply is safe
from dangerous pesticides.
17a. Do you support implementation of this law to assure that
children and other vulnerable people are fully protected from
dangerous pesticides contaminants?
Yes. I support the implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996. 17b. Would you oppose efforts
to delay the food safety requirements of this important law?
Yes. I would oppose efforts to delay the food safety
requirements of this Act. This Act was passed to protect the most
vulnerable members of our population---our children--from exposure
to hazardous pesticides. 17.c Do you believe all
pesticides that may remain on food products should be
comprehensively tested for safety, and that, where data is not
available, conservative assumptions should be applied to assure
public health protection?
Yes. Common sense dictates that we find out whether
pesticide residue on the foods we eat are contributing to health
problems. We should always use precaution in protecting public
health. 18. Right to Know
18a. Do you believe that the public has a right to know about
the full range of toxic chemicals in foods, drinking water and
consumer products?
Yes. I have always been a strong supporter of
Community Right to Know laws. I sponsored legislation in several
sessions of Congress which would have required EPA to keep not
only federal but also state data in one central computer data file
so that it could be accessed by emergency responders and the
public. I am pleased that the EPA administratively incorporated
some of my suggestions in 1996. 18b. Would you
support legislation, like that now in effect in California, to
require manufacturers to disclose the potential health risks
associated with cancer-causing or other highly toxic chemicals to
which they have exposed the public?
I think labeling and public disclosure have proved to
be effective ways to create incentives for safer products without
excessive regulations. 19. Toxics
Despite a
slow start in the 1980's, the Superfund program for cleaning up
toxic dumpsites has improved in recent years. Cleanup (other than
long-term groundwater treatment) is completed at over 500 of the
nation's 1300 Superfund sites and is underway at more than 500
others. Under Superfund's "polluter-pays" liability system,
polluters have directly paid for cleanups at more than 70% of
Superfund sites. In addition, the liability structure has created
strong incentives for pollution prevention and better waste
management. The program of polluter-pays taxes that support the
program expired in 1995, with a net loss of $4 million each day that
the taxes are not reinstated.
Critics of the program assert that cleanups are unduly expensive
because they too often involve treating wastes rather than simply
trying to contain them, and that litigation has been excessive.
19a. Do you support reinstating the Superfund taxes and not
weakening cleanup standards or the program's basic liability
system?
Yes. I fought vigorously to get the first Superfund
law enacted. I participated in the negotiations that broke the
filibuster and enabled the bill to pass the Senate. I also was
responsible for adding the tax provision for chemical companies
which helps finance the cleanups. I strongly supported the
reauthorization legislation in 1986, and have supported every
subsequent attempt to reauthorize the Superfund. I support
reinstating the Superfund taxes while retaining strong clean-up
standards and the polluter-pays liability system. 20.
Environmental Justice
Environmental problems -- from toxic
pollution to loss of biodiversity -- affect all of us. Some
communities, especially communities of color and poorer communities,
are likely to suffer disproportionate impacts from environmental
degradation. Evidence of environmental disparities includes: higher
incidences of childhood lead poisoning among African-American
children and among lower-income children; higher exposures by people
of color to air pollution and higher penalties for violations of
federal environmental laws levied in white communities compared to
minority communities. Other areas where environmental disparities
can exist include the siting of waste management facilities, access
to clean drinking water and food, job-related exposures to toxic
chemicals, access to well-maintained public park land, and the
availability of transportation options.
20a. What is your vision for insuring equal access to a clean
and healthy environment?
We have an obligation to reduce the exposure of all
citizens to environmental hazards and ensure them access to a
clean and healthy environment. There must not be, in effect, one
standard for poor areas of the nation and another for everyone
else. 20b. Would you support and strengthen
compliance with Executive Order 12898, the President's Order on
Environmental Justice (2/11/94), which mandates that each federal
agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low income
populations?
Yes. 20c. Are there other ways you would
address this problem?
We need to examine the cumulative impacts of the
decisions to site a large number of polluting facilities in the
same area or neighborhood.
Back
to Top
Environmental
Process and Procedures
21. Budget/Environmental Funding
Federal spending for
Natural Resources and the Environment budget category [Function 300]
has declined substantially since 1980. Environmentalists believe
that the management needs of national parks, wildlife refuges and
other federal lands and clean water and clean air programs continue
to increase.
21a. Would you support a reassessment of federal spending
priorities and restoration of an equitable portion of the federal
budget to natural resource and environmental programs and
agencies?
Yes. I supported amendments to increase the federal
funding for environmental protection and natural resources
restoration in the face of cuts by Republican dominated
Congresses. Protecting the public health and the legacy we leave
for the future must be adequately supported. The Land
and Water Conservation Fund was authorized by Congress at $900
million each year with revenue derived from Outer Continental Shelf
oil and gas leasing and production. Congress has regularly failed to
appropriate the authorized amount. The unappropriated balance in the
LWCF account now exceeds $11 billion.
21b. Would you support a permanent appropriation for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund to the authorized limit of $900 million
annually?
Yes. 22. Takings/Property
Rights
Recently, there have been efforts in the courts, the
Congress and in state legislatures to expand the application of the
Fifth Amendment's so-called "takings clause" in the name of
protecting property rights.
22a. Do you support legislation that would reject the
case-specific approach the courts now follow, redefine "property" or
otherwise expand the Constitution's takings clause?
I believe that the current laws provide appropriate
protection of property rights. Federal courts have had a long
record in dealing with these kinds of cases and the constitutional
issues that they raise. I don't think the interests of Justice
would be well-served by substituting the judgement of Congress for
those of federal judges who are able to examine each case on its
merits. 22b. Do you support legislation to allow
private interests to challenge local land use decisions in federal
court, bypassing local and state procedures?
No. Local decisions should be left initially to local
and state regulatory and judicial authorities, which are most
familiar with the facts and implications of particular decisions.
The current law provides opportunity to appeal unfavorable
decisions. 23. Legislative Riders
In recent
years, Congress has increasingly relied upon the insertion of
unrelated anti-environmental provisions into budget bills,
appropriations, and other legislation to bypass regular legislative
procedures and avoid presidential vetoes. Environmental groups
believe this procedure avoids public scrutiny and debate over new
laws, which roll back environmental protection.
23a. Do you believe that changes in environmental laws should
be subject to open debate and recorded votes in the Congress?
Yes. I believe that changes to our complex
environmental laws require the scrutiny of the Congressional
authorizing committees. 23b. Would you, as President,
veto budget bills or other measures that include unrelated
provisions weakening environmental programs?
Yes. 24. Regulatory Reform
Critics
of many environmental laws and regulations claim that the regulatory
process does not adequately consider costs of compliance to
business. Moreover, scientific studies on environmental protection
are often characterized by uncertainty.
24a. Under what circumstances should human health standards be
lowered based on the cost of compliance to industries?
Protection of the public's health should be the
paramount concern, although we should seek the most cost effective
ways of achieving this goal. Time and again, we've found that
those who oppose regulations have significantly overestimated the
cost of compliance. While it may be necessary in some
circumstances to allow for extended compliance periods so that
appropriate technological and process changes can be made, the
health standards themselves should not be
relaxed. 24b. Would you support legislation or
executive action to require more detailed assessments of costs than
currently undertaken by federal agencies before new public health or
environmental regulations are put in place?
No. Existing executive orders already require thorough
analyses for major rules. While cost/benefit analysis can be a
useful tool, it has many limitations and should not be given
excessive weight. For example, it completely ignores
considerations such as equity or the disparate impact on specific
populations. In addition, developing cost/benefit analyses
requires a great deal of information -- -information which may not
be available publicly because it is proprietary, because adequate
testing and monitoring has not been conducted, or because we have
not developed adequate ways to measure such things as the value of
ecosystem damage. 25. Environmental
Oversight
The Executive branch's Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) administers the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental
impact of their proposed actions. This commitment to examine major
federal agency actions and to anticipate their impact is fundamental
to the federal government's commitment to protecting the
environment. The CEQ has played a major role advocating
environmental protection in every administration since it was
created in 1970. Recently, the desirability of having a strong
environmental voice in the Office of the President has been
challenged, and some have proposed eliminating the CEQ.
25a. As President would you support NEPA and maintain the CEQ
in the White House at or above its current level of staffing?
Yes.
Back
to Top
Economic Policy
and Environmental Protection
26a. Please describe what the relationship between strong
environmental protection laws and strong economic performance would
be under your administration. Do present environmental laws need to
be modified (without necessarily reducing the present level of
environmental protection) in order to achieve or maintain a strong
economy?
A strong economy requires a clean environment and a
clean environment requires a strong economy. They are not
incompatible. I would encourage policies that unleashed the
creativity of industry in meeting strong environmental goals at
the lowest cost. I believe in ambitious environmental goals,
fairly and firmly administered, which provide maximum flexibility
to those whose actions are regulated to meet those targets and
rewards for exceeding them.
Back
to Top
|
