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?

We must increase the diversity of lands held in trust for future generations, ensuring that wilderness areas and other national treasures receive appropriate designation and protection, strengthening partnerships with state and local governments in oversight of public lands, and demonstrating that the lands now under public ownership are being managed to the highest standards of natural resource stewardship.

This vision requires a range of steps to continue improving our management of public lands to protect environmental and natural resource values. We must be prepared to expand designation of threatened wilderness areas, while recognizing the merits of acquisitions in urbanizing areas with declining habitat. As sprawling Federal facilities close or consolidate, the need to preserve habitat and public open space must be given priority in considering future uses of these properties. Lands and waters of ecological, historical, or recreational significance need strengthened protection and comprehensive management planning that takes into account the needs of endangered species, water quality, and multiple uses. As we add to the lands that are appropriate for public management because of their ecological values, we must consider returning other Federally owned lands to local communities and to private ownership.

We also must restore areas that have been degraded by decades of neglect, poor management, and poor stewardship that have been reversed only recently. These practices, dating in many cases to the nineteenth century, have left a legacy of acid mine drainage, overgrazed land, and other damage to natural resources as we enter the twenty-first century. The future for surrounding communities depends on a continued effort to address this terrible legacy.

For too long, those administering this public trust failed to balance the demands of mining, oil and -as production, timber harvesting and other industries against the public interest in preserving our natural heritage and natural resource base. This is another unfortunate legacy we must continue to address. This Administration has reversed decades of abuse of our public lands, and has begun a new era of stewardship at the Forest Service and other federal land management agencies, We cannot afford to return to the days when these agencies were captive of special interests.

This vision can be achieved while honoring the historical connection that communities in the West have had with the federal lands, strengthening our partnerships with the communities in the West, and across the nation whose future prosperity will depend directly on our improved stewardship of these federal lands.

I believe we need increased protection for our Nation's wildlands, which encompass both unprotected wilderness and other undeveloped areas. In the case of wilderness areas, we must extend the protection of wilderness and national monument designation to areas that are now unprotected, while ensuring that all such areas are managed for the benefit of future generations.

As Vice President, I've taken action to gain these increased protections. I pushed successfully for enactment of the California Desert Protection Act, extending protection to the largest expanse of public land in the lower 48 states. I also helped initiate numerous measures within the Executive Branch to enhance wilderness protection, including President Clinton's historic designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, the largest National Monument in the lower 48 states. Furthermore, when I served in Congress, I supported expanding America's parks and wildlife refuges to preserve these national treasures for future generations. I voted to expand America's National Parks adding thousands of acres to the National Park system. Additionally, I supported the funding of acquisition and protection of parklands. In 1990, 1 worked to raise awareness of the need to protect the Antarctic region from development and destruction and the threats of air pollution, tourist ships, and mining.

I have also acted to ensure comprehensive protection of valued areas that have been protected only in part. Through a successful acquisition strategy (including acquisition of the Cut Ranch), the reintroduction of wolves, and leadership to stop the New World Mine, we have been able to reconstitute an ecosystem for one our Nation's great treasures, Yellowstone National Park, As President, I would continue to provide this kind of leadership.

We also must recognize new approaches to protect undeveloped areas that may not be suitable for designation as wilderness or as national monuments. We must continue to seek full, mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This has been an essential element of the Lands Legacy Initiative that President Clinton and I put forward this past January to ensure that both federal and state governments have a stable funding source to preserve and protect areas of environmental or ecological importance. These new resources are needed for additions to our parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and public domain lands. Second, we must expand the tools and resources available to local communities to preserve and protect the great places right in their backyards, The Better America Bonds proposal, for example, promises more than $9.5 billion to preserve open space, protect water quality, and clean up brownfields for new development that otherwise would encroach on pristine areas. Third, we must support the efforts of state and local governments to protect undeveloped areas of regional significance, as reflected in our work to help state and local governments preserve both forests and forestry in the Northern forests. Finally, we must protect and restore lands and habitat that are critical to the health of major ecosystems, as exemplified in our Everglades restoration initiative, our salmon restoration efforts in the Pacific Northwest, and similar efforts on a smaller scale across the country.

Yes. We must never weaken provisions in current law requiring the Wildlife Refuge be managed as wilderness. President Clinton and I stood firm when, in 1995, a veto was needed to stop Congress' attempt to reopen the refuge to oil and gas development. I would support legislation to place this national treasure permanently beyond the reach of oil and gas development.

Yes, One of the Administration's proudest and most important initiatives has been to implement a Forest Service policy that will better protect roadless and undeveloped areas of our national forests, This is a policy we have defended against the assaults of the special interests, which too often have considered our national forests as a private domain rather than a public trust.

Our interim moratorium on new road construction has been the first historic step in this policy, and has protected tens of millions of acres of roadless areas that have been inventoried by the Forest Service. The challenge for our next President will be to protect the value of additional roadless areas that have not yet been formally inventoried by the Forest Service, and to address other activities that threaten the integrity of our National Forest System. I am committed to completing this work.

Assaults against this effort are sure to be renewed by the special interests in the next Congress. I promise that, as President, I would protect this important legacy and act to strengthen it wherever possible.

2a. Do you support the goal of this law?

Yes, I strongly support the goal of this law, The rate of species loss after enactment of the ESA speaks both to the importance of the law's goals and the need to improve and strengthen our efforts to administer the law. I am proud to have helped initiate the most concerted effort in the history of the E-SA to make the law work. After years of neglect and despite a host of legislative efforts to undermine the law, we have begun to achieve the recovery of major species, such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Just as importantly, we have protected millions of acres of habitat needed to save species from the brink of extinction, while enlisting the voluntary participation of private landowners in habitat protection measures under the ESA.

Yes. Current efforts need to be strengthened to ensure comprehensive ecosystem protection for habitat that supports threatened and endangered species, We must press for significant funding increases for the Section 6 program under the ESA, so that the Fish and Wildlife Service has the resources needed for sound implementation of the law, We also must promote habitat conservation plans (HCPs), we must better manage federal lands to ensure species protection, we must integrate ESA requirements into other federal regulatory and management programs, and we must commit targeted federal resources to support both habitat and species restoration efforts, This Administration's salmon restoration efforts in the Pacific Northwest, in Southern California, and elsewhere have established models for how these approaches can be successful on a regional basis.

I support the modest changes to the law needed to implement the "no surprises policy' and related reforms intended to promote the participation of private landowners in habitat conservation. The needed changes were included in the Kempthorne-Baucus bill in the 105th Congress, I have also worked hard to provide greater regulatory certainty to landowners who participate in HCPs and who undertake other measures to protect threatened and endangered species.

I also support the broader use of public investment to support habitat protection, which must include new resources for state and local governments to protect open space, and wetlands, I also support expanded federal support for comprehensive ecosystem and habitat restoration efforts that advance the ESA's goals. Our Lands Legacy proposal is an essential part of a broader strategy of investment in habitat protection. I also advocated the first major proposal for federal investment directly targeted to species restoration: our $100 million salmon restoration fund for the Pacific Northwest. This is an important example of how public investment can be deployed to advance economic and environmental goals while easing the burden that the ESA otherwise would place on private landowners.

3a. Do you support reversing declining fish populations and rebuilding overfished fisheries even if this results in adverse short-term economic impacts?

We must rebuild declining fisheries and require that all fisheries be managed in a sustainable manner to prevent overfishing, Long-term economic and environmental interests both require prudent measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of our fisheries. We should seek the full participation of fishing communities in meting our conservation objectives, and minimize adverse impacts on those communities. If necessary management measures adversely affect communities, we must provide economic assistance to those communities to help them make a successful transition to sustainable fisheries management, These short-term impacts must be considered and addressed, but cannot be an excuse for inaction.

We also must provide funding to reduce excess capacity in the fishing industry, mid international leadership to ensure that the fleets of other nations are implementing comparable measures so that foreign competitors are not defeating the steps we take domestically, We have begun to take these steps, domestically and globally, including work with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to address overcapacity in global fisheries, and work in various regional fora to address declining stocks of highly migratory species such as tuna and swordfish. We must strengthen these efforts and expand them to avoid the collapse of other declining stocks.

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?

I support comprehensive reform of the Mining Law of 1872. The Administration has consistently advocated reforms that would require a reasonable return to the public, when private mining takes place on public lands, that would strengthen environmental standards for mining operations, and that would require adequate reclamation of mining sites, Clearly, land management agencies must have discretion to reject mining proposals that conflict with broader stewardship goals or otherwise conflict with the public interest. In addition, we should make sure that the funding generated by any new fees should be devoted to the cleanup of abandoned mine sites.

While Congress has resisted reform proposals in the past, I will persist in the effort to bring this law into line with 21st-century standards of environmental stewardship. I also will continue to oppose piecemeal changes in the 1872 law catering to special interests, including recent proposals that would allow increased dumping of mine waste.

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?

I personally participated in bringing the Kyoto negotiations to a successful conclusion, and the Protocol was an important achievement in the course of my long struggle in public life to bring national and international attention to the threat of climate change. As a Congressman and as a Senator, I worked to bring awareness to the problems associated with global warming. In 199 1, T held some of the earliest hearings in Congress on the impact of global warming on the environment. I continued these efforts to raise awareness of global warming and called for the establishment of the World Environment Policy Act to establish guidelines, regulations and potential sources of detrimental products that were contributing to the degradation of our global environment.

The Kyoto Protocol requires the advice and consent of the Senate, and President Clinton is committed to submitting the Protocol once meaningful participation of developing countries has been secured. Upon submission, I believe that the Senate should ratify the Protocol. I strongly believe that the Protocol will help ensure that our domestic reductions in greenhouse -as emissions are met by commensurate efforts internationally, while providing the flexible mechanisms for compliance 02at are needed to sustain economic growth and prosperity at home and abroad.

Domestically, we can and must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as part of a more aggressive strategy of reducing air pollution. I believe that this obligation must be met regardless of when or whether the Senate approves the specific targets, timetables, and mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol. We have the technology to meet this challenge without diminishing the strength of our economy or compromising our quality of life. Emissions and fuel economy standards must be reviewed and strengthened, as discussed in more detail below, to ensure reductions in both greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants. We must couple these steps with incentives and funding, as proposed in our Climate Change Technology Initiative, that will accelerate the technologies and efficiency gains that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We already have begun this effort, as have many individual leaders in the industrial community whose firms have recognized the wisdom of taking action now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

6a. Would you support a policy, phased in over 5 years, requiring light trucks to meet the same fuel economy standards as passenger vehicles?

I certainly would support a properly structured policy to ensure a significantly more fuel efficient light truck fleet. Today's light trucks generally are more polluting and less efficient than cars, Americans who choose light trucks also want clean air, and they should not have to settle for polluting, inefficient vehicles. Current fuel economy standards have not given consumers the environmentally sound light trucks they should have, and Congress has blocked efforts to update those standards for several years.

We can achieve a more efficient truck fleet while meeting consumer preferences for other vehicle attributes, including affordability, We have dramatically reduced auto emissions, over the past quarter century, achieving significant health benefits at very modest cost to consumers. Technological advances promise that we also can achieve greater efficiency in light trucks without sacrificing affordability. In reviewing the options available to achieve this goal, I would consider the proposal here and would want to understand how, if at all, it differs from the proposal set forth in Question 6(b).

For many years, I have highlighted the importance of raising fuel economy standards, and time has only reinforced the importance of this goal. The first step will be for Congress to eliminate the riders, passed year after year, that have made it impossible even to consider raising corporate average fuel economy (CAFB) standards, Once the authority to implement new CAFE standards is restored, then we can take a realistic look at whether a 42 mile-per-gallon goal over 10 years is too ambitious, or, as may be the case, too timid, I would begin the process with the hope of achieving at least this goal. We must work together to build political support in Congress for this crucial step.

An ambitious goal is possible at least in part because of our Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). PNGV is my initiative with the auto industry to invest our resources and domestic ingenuity in creating the technology that will be needed for significant gains in fuel economy.

While Congress blocked new CAFE standards, we challenged Detroit to make a quantum leap in car technology. PNGV's goal has been to develop cars that get three times the fuel mileage of today's models without increasing cost or sacrificing safety, performance or comfort. At the latest car shows, the Big 3 all have some very promising prototypes. The competition is on, and both consumers and the environment will be the winners. CAFE standards cannot, however, comprise the sum total of our efforts to reduce transportation-related emissions. Other market mechanisms, including the tax credits for fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles will also be necessary. Them are also numerous aspects of community planning and development that play a critical role in emissions reduction. I have been a strong advocate of giving communities the tools and resources they need to look at the myriad factors that contribute to the problem of vehicle emissions. On both a local and regional basis, communities need help to address past practices that have resulted in uncontrolled urban sprawl, outmoded transportation plans, and inadequate public transportation. Nationally, we need policies and incentives to encourage emission-reducing steps like telecommuting and home office use. As we provide the support communities need to address these problems, we will not only reduce traffic jams and smog but also increase the time we have to spend with our families.

7a. Would you support legislation limiting power plant emissions of carbon dioxide? Are there other ways you would address this problem?

I would support legislation to advance a broad strategy to reduce our reliance on older and dirtier coal-fired power plants, in an effort to reduce a range of air pollutants that include carbon dioxide. These plants are not only a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions, they also contribute to other air and water pollution problems, including nitrogen and mercury deposition that impair water quality and contaminate sediments.

This can be achieved through a combination of regulatory standards and incentive-based mechanisms to promote early reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Our proposed Clean Air Partnership Fund, a fund that promotes early reductions in criteria pollutants or toxics that also achieve carbon dioxide reductions, illustrates the type of model that can supplement tough regulatory standards to bring about significant reductions of carbon dioxide.

8a. Do you oppose transporting nuclear waste until there is a scientifically sound, permanent, licensed solution to the waste problem?

Yes. I have steadfastly opposed efforts by three Republican Congresses to bypass environmental requirements and dictate interim storage in Nevada. These interim storage bills, written by and for the nuclear power industry, would be the law today if President Clinton and I had not stood firm in opposition. While I was in Congress, I called for a wholesale review of our nuclear waste management program to ensure its safety and effectiveness.

Facility operators must be required to implement appropriate site security measures as a condition for their licenses. Where facility operators fail to provide adequate security, the Federal government must be prepared to step in.

I oppose any weakening of environmental or public health standards. As a Nation, we too bear the consequences and costs of toxic waste disposal practices that disregard the need to ensure long-term protection of communities, The risks are even greater with respect to nuclear waste, We ought to learn from our mistakes, and insist that nuclear waste disposal meet all environmental and public health standards.

9a. If nuclear power's share of electricity generation decreases, what mix of energy sources would replace it?

As our reliance on nuclear power declines, we must increase the role of renewable energy sources and we must promote the development of technologies that enable us to use energy more efficiently. We must also recognize that both our economic and environmental goals require a vision of the future that does not simply assume ever-expanding consumption of fossil fuels and an ever-growing base of centralized power generation. That future requires a smooth transition to an energy system that meets our needs without overheating the planet. Proposals for restructuring and deregulating the electric power industry present an opportunity to help create this future, just as our effort to modernize our telecommunications laws helped unleash a telecommunications revolution built around the Internet.

10a. What role should the federal government play in helping communities address this fast-growing threat to their quality of life and environment?

The Federal government must do more to help communities ensure that economic growth brings with it safer and cleaner neighborhoods for working families, more open space and parks, and greater support for local and regional efforts to plan and manage development effectively. This has been the focus of the Livable Communities initiative that I announced this past January, an agenda that is essential not only to protect the environment but also to protect a way of life for America's families, This initiative represents a fundamental shift in the direction of Federal programs, requiring a range of agencies to; 1) provide communities with the information, tools, and resources they need to anticipate and shape future growth, 2) encourage communities to work together to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by growth; and 3) ensure that Federal programs and decisions support and reinforce local growth management efforts.

The Livable Communities initiative includes almost $1 billion in new funding priorities to help communities to ease traffic congestion, save farmland and other open spaces, revitalize urban neighborhoods, redevelop idle brownfields sites, develop regional partnerships, and pursue other smart growth strategies. As local communities work to plan their future transportation needs and broaden the transportation alternatives available to them, we will certainly need to increase the portion of the Highway Trust Fund devoted to alternative transportation choices. This was one of my major priorities in our work with Congress on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and I am proud that we significantly increased our portion of funding now being invested in alternatives to major new highway construction.

The centerpiece of the Livability agenda I announced in January was our Better America Bonds proposal, an innovative Tax credit proposal that promises to generate more than $9.5 billion in new resources over five years to help communities preserve open space, protect water quality, and clean up and revitalize idle brownfields sites,

These new resources must be coupled with greater support for congestion mitigation and alternative transportation strategies; redevelopment of abandoned and underutilized buildings; community crime-prevention and data-sharing; access to integrated Federal information relevant to local planning; and regional partnerships that overcome jurisdictional and parochial barriers to smart growth strategies, These new efforts must be integrated into the planning and decision process of federal agencies, so that federal projects and funding are consistent with locally-led growth management efforts.

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?

Stabilization of world population is an essential element of ensuring the health of the world's resources and the health and prosperity of future generations throughout the world. I have long supported population assistance under the auspices of United Nations, and the Administration supported fall funding for international family planning beginning in Cairo (in 1994) and thereafter. I also encourage our Administration to reverse the Mexico City policy, which blocked assistance on the basis of unrelated family planning practices in recipient countries. I will continue to support the funding needed to achieve universal access to contraception by the year 2015.

12a. Would you support changing international trade rules to prevent the weakening of public health and environmental laws?

Yes, we need to strengthen the operation of both international trade rules and international trade institutions to make sure they do not weaken labor, public health, or environmental laws. We need to make sure that the trade agreements we negotiate help level the playing field for domestic manufacturers and agricultural producers who meet some of the toughest environmental and worker safety standards in the world. Our trade agreements must reinforce and protect that leadership. Tough trade agreements are critical to ensuring that globalization pays environmental dividends.

It is equally important to strengthen - and open - the international institutions that administer the international trade system. The World Trade Organization and similar bodies must be made more open, their decisions must be more transparent, and their rules must be changed to allow broader participation by nongovernmental organizations.

At the same time, we must be must be wary of the assumption, which I do not accept, that expanding trade is hostile to environmental protection. Pitting the economy against the environment presents a false choice, in this area as in others. Expanded trade can help protect the environment. With trade, countries grow richer and can invest more in clean water and clean air. NAFTA has produced some real environmental success stories. For example, the three NAFTA countries have developed regional action plans for the phase out or sound management of DDT, mercury, PCBs and other persistent toxic chemicals.

My participation in a number of international negotiations, including the negotiations that yielded the Kyoto protocol, has made clear to me the importance of ensuring that the President and the President's principal negotiators have the authority, flexibility, and discretion to negotiate effectively and without undue interference. As a practical matter, this makes it difficult to expand congressional or public involvement in the midst of negotiations without weakening the hand of negotiators to produce the strongest possible agreement for the United States. For example, it simply is not possible to have public or congressional review of our negotiating positions and strategies, when our negotiating partners face no such constraints. Ultimately, our ability to negotiate agreements that strengthen protection of public health and the environment will be diminished, not enhanced, by expanding oversight and involvement during negotiations.

These constraints on further oversight and involvement during negotiations do not preclude better consultation with Congress and the public before negotiations begin, as well as at other critical stages in the process. I believe that the public confidence needed to restore the President's traditional trade authority can only be sustained if we consult effectively with Congress and the public before negotiations begin.

13a. Will you work to persuade the Senate to ratify the Convention?

Yes. I will work to persuade the Senate to ratify the Convention, which remains an important pail of ensuring that our leadership in stemming the loss of biodiversity is met with comparable efforts internationally.

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?

We need to strengthen the Clean Water Act and significantly increase our investments in clean water if we are to fully reach the goal Congress set a generation ago: to achieve fishable and swimmable waters nationwide.

Throughout my career, as a Congressman and as a Senator, I voted for clean water legislation. I supported the continuing funding of the program and voted against attempts to cut funding for the Clean Water program. In the Senate, I voted in favor of expanding research of clean water programs and to apply the most current technologies to cleaning up contaminated water systems

As Vice President, I initiated a Clean Water Action Plan that put in place new funding and essential regulatory elements to address the problem of polluted runoff. The new funding has included more than $4.6 billion in new funding over five years across a range of agencies and a set-aside of new grant monies to fund nonpoint-source pollution control. This funding includes expanded support for conservation programs and new funding for farmers and ranchers to control polluted runoff, The regulatory steps include the first strategy to bring large "factory farm" livestock operations into the regulatory system and an overhaul of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations requiring that states address polluted runoff that impairs water quality. These T.MDL requirements, in particular, were too long neglected by prior Administrations. I insisted that we update the rules and set a schedule for compliance to address the more than 20,000 water bodies that remain impaired.

While the Action Plan put in place new funding, new standards, and a more comprehensive, watershed approach to improving water quality, these administrative steps ultimately must be reinforced with a strengthened Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act must be strengthened with enforceable controls to provide a backstop where states fail to meet T-MDL requirements. While we have strengthened regulatory protection of wetlands, we must eliminate a loophole in the law that now threatens the loss of tens of thousands of acres of wetlands through ditching and draining. We must restore the rights of citizens' groups to enforce Clean Water Act standards and requirements. Our increases to Clean Water funding, while significant, have been outpaced by the infrastructure and other pollution control needs of state and local governments and rural communities. The authorization levels in the law must reflect the magnitude of current clean water funding needs. This balanced approach recognizes that regulatory requirements, while important, will not be enough to meet the goals established for restoring and maintaining water quality for all of our communities.

We also must stand firm against those attempts, seen in every one of the last three Republican Congresses, to weaken the Clean Water Act. The "Dirty Water Bill" in the 104th Congress was the most notorious, but by no means the last, of these attempts.

Most recently, an appropriations rider in the 106th Congress has threatened our efforts to strengthen wetlands and flood protection. I will continue to stand firm against, and as President, where necessary, I would veto these attacks on clean water protection.

15a. How would you act to reverse the steady erosion of this natural resource?

I have long been a supporter of expanding the preservation of the wetlands. In Congress, I voted for legislation that provided funding to acquire wetlands as well as providing funding for preservation and restoration programs.

As Vice President, I initiated the Clean Water Action Plan, which proposed a goal of achieving an annual net gain of 100,000 acres of wetlands by the year 2005.

This ambitious goal requires a number of steps and began with a tightening of the regulatory program to ensure no net loss of wetlands, which the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, First, we phased out Nationwide Permit 26, an expedited wetlands fill permit linked to the loss of thousands of wetland acres annually, and required that all major permits for wetlands fill in the I 00-year flood-plain, in impaired waters, and in pristine waters, be excluded from the nationwide permit system. The Republican, Congress tried to stop these new protections through legislative riders that would have extended Nationwide Permit 26, and only a veto threat stands in the way of this effort.

These advances in regulatory protection also have been threatened by a recent court decision allowing developers to avoid permit requirements if they simply ditch or drain wetlands, rather than fill them. A second essential step toward the 100,000-acre annual net gain goal will be to work with Congress and insist on eliminating this new threat to wetlands protection.

We also must recognize that regulation alone will never be enough to restore the losses of the past several decades. We must increase public investment and expand our partnerships with state and local governments, conservancies and land trusts, and conservation and sporting groups. In particular, we must increase the resources available to state and local governments to acquire, protect, and restore critical wetlands. For this reason, I have supported full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, innovative funding mechanisms like the Better America Bonds proposal to support local wetlands and open space preservation initiatives, increased funding of wetlands restoration and preservation programs among the federal agencies, expansion of the Wetlands Reserve Program, and other programs supporting the conservation of wetlands in agricultural areas, We also must pursue broader use of conservation easements and other approaches to permanently protect wetlands that are privately held.

One of the central challenges of the next Administration will be to address the major losses of Louisiana's coastal wetlands, which present not only a significant environmental asset, but also a vital protection against flood and storm damage. Through the authority of the Breaux Act, we have taken the first step in a badly needed restoration effort that must be strengthened and expanded.

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?

I have long been an advocate of cleaner air. In Congress, I supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989 that created an Office of Indoor Air Quality, established five new areas of pollution standards, including acid rain, ozone levels, mobile sources of pollution and air toxics, and carbon monoxide. The bill established a new permitting and enforcement authority for the states and the EPA to carry out.

As Vice President, I strongly support EPA's new soot and smog standards, and I am proud to have announced EPA's regional haze rule myself. As discussed above, a comprehensive strategy for clean air requires that we tighten vehicle emission standards, including standards for SUV and light trucks, and that we work toward the phaseout of older power plants that cannot meet modern air pollution standards which contribute disproportionately to carbon dioxide, mercury, and other emissions of toxics and pollutants.

The poor air quality in a number of communities this past summer and the increasing asthma rates for children in communities afflicted by dirty air, highlights the work still to be done to provide healthy air for all Americans, The recent decision of a three judge panel to overturn EPA's soot and smog rules, which the Administration is fighting to reverse, also highlights the need for judicial nominees who are willing to enforce the environmental and public health standards that Congress authorized in the Clean Air Act and other laws. As President, I would select nominees who support the latitude of agencies to set tough standards that are needed to protect public health and the environment.

Yes. We should require all power plants to meet modem air pollution standards. This will surely accelerate the phase-out of older, dirtier plants and hasten our transition to a future in which we meet our energy needs while reducing deleterious impacts to our health, our environment, and global climate. This goal must be met over time, and should be further accelerated through market mechanisms that encourage earlier replacement of these plants with cleaner energy sources.

17a. Do you support implementation of this law to assure that children and other vulnerable people are fully protected from dangerous pesticides contaminants?

I strongly support implementation of this law. The law reflects our Administration's proposals for tough standards to eliminate any unacceptable risks that pesticides may present to human health, especially to children, or to the environment. This past August EPA announced new restrictions on Methyl Parathion, one of the most widely used pesticides in agriculture, as well as other measures to meet the FQPA mandate to make the food supply safer and strengthen protection of our children.

Yes. I have insisted that the Administration strongly oppose several bills now pending in the 106th Congress that threaten FQPA implementation with undue delay, with unnecessary and burdensome procedures, and with new avenues for litigation to stop regulatory decisions by EPA. I believe that FQPA implementation can meet principles of sound science, transparency, full public participation, and reasonable transition for agriculture without undermining or delaying the standards and safeguards provided by the law.

Public input has been important because the new standards in this law - special protection for children, requirements to address cumulative and aggregate risks, replacement of the Delaney clause with a unitary public health standard - present both a significant achievement and significant challenges for implementation. If implemented well, FQPA will serve as a model for approaching complex issues of risk from a public health perspective.

Pesticides should be tested wherever necessary to make FQPA regulatory decisions that are based on sound science. Where there are uncertainties concerning potential risks, especially risks to children, the Administration proposed and Congress enacted in FQPA, a presumptive ten-fold safety factor, consistent with a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences. This is the right approach. EPA has begun to implement this new standard, while also starting the longer-term process of understanding and addressing the aggregate and cumulative risks from pesticide exposures.

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. Over the past two terms, I nave initiated and overseen an unprecedented series of efforts to honor and expand the public's right to know about toxics in our communities, in the products we buy, and in the water we drink. As our society is transformed by the information technology and the power of the Internet, these efforts will assume even greater importance.

We have doubled the number of chemicals that are subject to reporting under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) provisions of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to -Know Act (EPCRTKA). Early in our -first term, we required Federal facilities to file public TRI reports and to meet ambitious emission reduction goals, On Earth Day 1996, I announced a more than 30 percent increase in the number of facilities that must provide TRI reports to the public. On Earth Day1998, I announced that EPA would lower the reporting thresholds for TRI chemicals that have been shown to be persistent and bioaccumulative toxics and began a closer look at chemicals that might present special risks to children. This initiative will expand the number of facilities reporting and the amount of information available to communities. On that same day, I also launched an innovative partnership among the Environmental Defense Fund, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and EPA to provide the public with basic health effects data on nearly 2800 chemicals that are used in high production volume (HPV) in the United States,

Our Administration has also pioneered efforts to honor community right-to-know about drinking water safety and food quality. We supported amendments to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act that require consumer confidence reports, providing easy-to--understand information to families about contaminants in their drinking water. EPA already has finalized the regulations to implement this requirement. In FQPA, we supported revisions to the law to provide families with basic information about food safety.

Yes, I would support legislation that would provide comparable disclosure requirements for significant potential risks to consumers under Federal law.

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?

I have repeatedly defended the Superfund law against efforts in the last three Congresses to roll back cleanup standards, to weaken the "polluter pays" principle, and to restrict EPA's ability to act to protect communities and the environment from toxic threats. I also have supported the reinstatement of the taxes that support Superfund, but Congress has held the taxes hostage to its unacceptable "reform" proposals. The revenues from these taxes are needed both to support the existing programs and to address significant problems that may not be addressed through the Superfund liability scheme, including brownfields and contaminated sediment sites. The multi-billion dollar windfall that oil and chemical companies have received as a result of Congress' failure to continue the Superfund taxes is a national scandal, and threatens severe limits to the ability of EPA and other Federal and State agencies to address toxic sites.

As a member of Congress, I was one of the first to tackle the issue of toxic waste by calling hearings in 1979 that revealed illegal dumping of billions of pounds of toxic chemicals, As a direct result of these hearings that I held, the "Superfund" law was created, which has helped clean up the worst environmental problems in the country.

As Vice President, I am proud of this Administration's many reforms to Superfund, which have accelerated the pace of cleanup while providing greater fairness in administering the liability scheme. These reforms have enabled EPA to complete cleanup at three times as many sites during our Administration as were cleaned up in the entire 12 years of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. To help accelerate cleanup at sites that are not on 'National Priority List (NPL), I urged President Clinton to give Federal resource managers the authority to order polluters to perform cleanups affecting natural resources, which he did in 1996. Our brownfields initiatives have helped to revitalize urban industrial sites and demonstrate that toxic waste cleanup can be a stepping stone to economic development and helps steer new development away from pristine sites. We have used Superfund to strengthen protection of our communities and bring new jobs to distressed areas, and we have achieved these major improvements in the Superfund program without undermining cleanup standards or the "polluter pays" principle.

Unfortunately, Congress has failed to reinstate the Superfund taxes that arc~ -essential to avoiding delays in cleanup and to ensuring that polluters, not taxpayers, foot the bill for cleanup. I will continue to call on Congress to reinstate these taxes and to abandon their efforts to let polluters off the hook or hamstring EPA's efforts to protect communities --proposals I would veto. I will also continue to call on Congress to enact those reforms to Superfund that would facilitate brownfields cleanup and that reflect broad consensus in the Congress.

20a. What is your vision for insuring equal access to a clean and healthy environment?

While in the Congress, I was proud to be among the first to join Representative John Lewis in putting forward legislation that highlighted the need for Federal attention to this problem. As Vice President, I have strongly supported President Clinton's Executive Order on environmental justice, Executive Order 12898 (Feb, 1, 1994), and I have promoted efforts by our agencies to meet the goals of the Executive Order in a variety of contexts,

First, we need to make sure that Federal decisions, standards, and programs take into account the multiple and cumulative exposures to pollution that too often are present in low-income and minority communities. EPA's new soot and smog regulations, for example, recognized the disproportionate impacts that poor air quality has on low-income and minority communities. Our asthma initiative recognizes that asthma is becoming a national epidemic, and that asthma rates for black and Hispanic communities are often double and triple the national average. We have had an aggressive program to abate lead hazards in housing, which disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities.

Second, we must give low-income and minority communities a voice in the policy decisions that affect them, so that the health and environmental needs of these communities are given their rightful priority when funding, enforcement, and permitting decisions are made. As a result of our initiatives, environmental justice must be considered in assessing the environmental impacts of proposed agency actions. Recently, the Administration convened community-level environmental justice meetings in New York and Los Angeles to provide low-income and minority communities a seat at the table with the federal, state, and local agencies responsible for ensuring environmental and public health protection in their communities. We are hoping that these meeting and will help us to define new models for promoting environmental Justice at the community level.

Third, where permitting programs are delegated to or affected by decisions by state and local governments, we must work with the states and provide appropriate incentives and support to ensure that their programs address environmental justice concerns. We also must recognize that historical development and residential patterns often will require targeted action and investments to address exposure levels and patterns that cannot be addressed on a permit-by-permit basis. Our Lands Legacy proposal, for example, dramatically expands the funding available for urban parks. Our Better America Bonds proposal provides a new tax credit that would expand the funding available not only for parks but also for brownfields cleanup, which we know to be a significant need in low-income and minority communities.

Finally, we must recognize and act on the principle that achieving environmental justice is inextricably linked to economic development in low-income and minority communities. A neighborhood must be safe, clean and healthful to attract the investment that brings with it jobs and economic opportunity. Economic growth brings with it the resources needed to create livable communities.

Yes, I would support and strengthen compliance with Executive Order 12898, particularly in the areas outlined above.

We must recognize the close linkages between environmental justice and other significant challenges facing America's families. Unsafe streets invite dumping and other toxic threats. Dirty neighborhoods, in turn, attract more crime and vandalism, Inadequate access to health care for low-income and minority families often magnifies the impacts and delays detection of significant health and environmental threats in their communities. Unmanaged suburban sprawl can be both a cause and a consequence of environmental and public health challenges in abandoned or neglected urban areas that once were commercial or industrial centers. Gaps in our transportation system often serve as barriers to employment and growth in low-income and minority communities. Inadequate resources for creating parks and protecting water quality contribute, not only to unhealthful conditions in many communities, but also weaken the community fabric and cohesion needed to demand that environmental and public health problems are addressed. We must understand the challenge of achieving environmental justice as integrally linked to addressing these other issues.

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?

I do support a reassessment of Function 300 spending, and support restoration of funding to natural resource and environmental programs. Congress has failed to fully fund the President's budget requests for Function 300 over the past six years, and we must reverse that trend if we are to meet the challenges that the new century will bring for our environmental and natural resource programs. For example, as discussed above, we know that the funding needs for water pollution control will greatly outstrip funding levels in the next decade, and we must act on that challenge.

21b. Would you support a permanent appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the authorized limit of $900 million annually?

I support a permanent appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund to at least the $1 billion level, as President Clinton has proposed (beginning with the FY2001 budget) as part of our Lands Legacy Initiative.

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 have strongly opposed all of the legislative proposals that seek to expand the protection now afforded by the Constitution or that otherwise would create new rights of compensation that were never contemplated by the Founders. In many cases, these proposals are thinly-veiled attempts by major developers to limit the ability of federal, state, and local agencies to enforce reasonable zoning or regulatory requirements that are essential to protecting the rights of other property owners and the public at large. Over the last three Congresses, only the threat of a veto has stopped these proposals from moving forward.

As Vice President, I have lead the opposition to these proposals and I have recommended that the President veto any such measure. As President, I certainly would veto these types of proposals and support the case-by-case approach to balancing the public interest against the legitimate rights of private property owners.

I strongly oppose these measures, which undermine the authority of Federal, state, and local governments to resolve land use disputes at the local level. Instead, local land use disputes could go directly to into Federal court, giving developers a new club to wield against agencies trying to protect the rights of property owners with competing interests; the threat of premature and costly litigation in federal court. As a result, these legislative proposals would actually take away the lights of communities to control their future,

I am proud to have joined with state and local governments in leading the opposition to this legislation in the 105th and 106th Congresses. As President, I am committed to opposing this type of legislation and to vetoing any such proposal that reached my desk.

23a. Do you believe that changes in environmental laws should be subject to open debate and recorded votes in the Congress?

Absolutely. All too often in the past six years, industry lobbyists and other special interests have sought to weaken environmental and public health protections through legislative riders and similar efforts that bypass the safeguards of the legislative process.

These riders would never be enacted if they were subject to full public scrutiny and debate, and a requirement of open debate and recorded votes would put an end to these stealth attacks on the environment.

I would veto budget bills and other measures that include unacceptable, anti-environmental riders that have not been subject to public scrutiny and debate. Over the course of the Administration, I have seen repeatedly that the President's threat of a veto has been the last, and too often the only, protection of vital environmental and public health standards from the onslaught of special interest provisions. President Clinton's veto of the Interior and VA-HUD appropriations bills in 1996 because of their anti--environmental riders illustrated the importance of having a President committed to environmental protection. In every year since, Congress has repeated the attempt and has withdrawn pernicious riders - ranging from special deals for oil and gas companies to an override of wetlands protections -- only after threat of a veto by the President.

24a. Under what circumstances should human health standards be lowered based on the cost of compliance to industries?

Human health standards should not be lowered merely on the basis of the cost of compliance. High costs of compliance, however, warrant closer attention to alternative approaches that might achieve the same level of human health protection at reduced cost. Furthermore, as we develop and defend tough standards, we must be prepared to revisit and r-revise regulations and regulatory proposals that result in significant cost and potential dislocation with little benefit in terms of environmental or public health protection.

I supported President Clinton's veto of regulatory reform proposals that would have elevated cost considerations above the obligation to protect public health and the environment or would have substituted a simple cost test for the standards of a range of laws that protect worker safety, public health, and the environment, As President, I would continue to oppose these types of proposals.

I believe the current approach to regulatory review under Executive Order 12866 provides for appropriate consideration of the costs and benefits, and that any more detailed requirements are best considered in the context of amending specific environmental or public health statutes. I have opposed, and will continue to oppose, legislative regulatory reform proposals that would undermine existing standards, unduly constrain the discretion of agencies under their current statutes, or create new avenues for litigation that would undermine or delay important new standards and safeguards.

There is certainly room to improve current regulatory review practices. There is substantial evidence that costs of compliance often are far lower than predicted when regulations were developed. The methods and data available to assess the public health and environmental benefits of regulation are quite limited, presenting the risk that we will fail to take actions that are cost-justified. Critical attention to these areas offers greater promise for improved regulatory decision-making than new and prescriptive regulatory reform legislation.

25a. As President would you support NEPA and maintain the CEQ in the White House at or above its current level of staffing?

I strongly support CEQ's role as one of the principal policy councils within the White House. Both President Clinton and I have relied on CEQ to provide critical advice concerning our environmental priorities, to integrate environmental concerns into a range of Administration policies; to provide needed oversight of the federal agencies; and to coordinate among federal, state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations, Regrettably, CEQ's funding has not kept pace with its role, and I have consistently sought to increase the level of funding available to the Council.

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?

During the course of the Clinton-Gore Administration, we have had the strongest economy in a generation at the same time that we have implemented the toughest standards to protect human health and the environment. We have emphatically rejected the claim that our environmental laws need to be compromised in order to enhance economic performance. To the contrary, communities across the country now recognize that they depend on the health of their environment and the protection of their natural resources to sustain their economy and their way of life.

There are numerous areas where we can improve the environmental regulatory structure to address what often are truly unintended consequences and to integrate environmental concerns with economic and other policy objectives, Our brownfields program, for example, was built upon common-sense reforms of the Superfund law to eliminate obstacles to the cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites. These reforms not only help to revitalize the economy of our cities and other industrial areas but also are helping to conserve open space and deter new development of pristine sites.

There are also numerous ways that we must adapt our environmental laws to the dynamics of a changing economy-, expanding community access to environmental information; increasing flexibility so that both companies and regulators can respond to rapidly changing markets and production practices; creating new incentives for superior environmental performance, encouraging innovative environmental technology, and advocating product responsibility. Traditional regulatory tools and enforcement will remain critically important, but we must couple those traditional efforts with economic and market instruments, like tax incentives for innovative products and targeted investments in local ecosystem protection.

Back to Top