Introduction Natural Resources and Public Lands Global Warming; Energy, Transportation, and Land Use International Pollution and Public Health Environmental Process and Procedures Economic Policy and Environmental Protection LCVs 2000 Presidential Profiles • Campaign News • Candidate Profiles • Press Releases • Presidential Questionnaire • Download the Profiles (PDF, 3 M)

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?

America has been blessed with a rich and diverse natural heritage and we have a profound duty to be responsible caretakers. If we are to successfully meet our obligations, we must manage our resources wisely-as trustees for the benefit of future generations. The ethic of conservation and sustainable-use must guide the management of our public lands.

With respect to our National Parks, we must better fund and care for our great treasures. I have proposed legislation to increase funding for National Parks, in part by using bonds and leveraging appropriate private sector assistance. I also believe that we should expand air tour overflight management, which I was successful in putting into place at Grand Canyon National Park, to every park in the system, so that we can properly protect the value of quiet while appropriately accommodating a legitimate park use. We must also strive to assure that the quality of visitor experience at all parks is world class. This means providing for the enjoyment of our parks for the American people while we properly steward the beauty and natural resources for which these areas were set aside and that visitors come to experience.

With respect to the management of BLM, Forest Service, and FWS lands, we must remain committed to the standards of multiple and sustainable use, always assuring that the land remains healthy and that the purposes for which these lands were set aside are fulfilled.

I am committed to a responsible resource planning and management system that involves all stake holders and assures that we pass our natural resources on to future generations in even better condition than we received them.

I would like to see every state emulate the state of Arizona where we have enacted comprehensive wilderness bills for both BLM and Forest Service lands, placing over 3.5 million acres of public land into permanent wilderness protection. Arizona is the only state in the nation to have achieved that milestone.

Every state should go through the arduous, but well worthwhile, process of consultation, public involvement and negotiations with stake-holders to craft wilderness legislation that will responsibly preserve, in perpetuity, their greatest treasures.

For those areas not designated as wilderness, we should continue to utilize the Resource Management Planning process, with its public participation procedures, to assure that unique areas are protected in accordance with our land-use and conservation laws.

Most of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is designated wilderness except for a parcel on the arctic plain believed to hold enormous oil and gas potential. I support developing this potential only if such development is confined to a small footprint, and vigorous operational and reclamation standards are scrupulously observed to make sure that any development does not harm in any significant way wildlife or the ecosystem in this unique area.

Forest roads should be barred where they are inappropriate or not called for within the applicable Forest Management Plan. Roads have vital purposes including access for recreation, fire control and wildlife management access as well as for sustainable timber harvest activities consistent with the applicable forest plan. Road construction and closure decisions should be made on a case-by-case according to the merits.

As a general rule, road construction should be limited to the minimum necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the forest plan, and maintain the natural integrity and sustainability of the forest.

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

Yes.

We can always do a better job of helping endangered wildlife and plant species to recover. I believe one area on which we might focus is to work proactively with private property owners, many of whom want to be good stewards, to protect and create habitat and identify species that need help before the issue is a legal matter.

We must work to identify the problems, challenges and goals first, then work to achieve them as fairly, effectively and responsibly as possible.

Again, by requiring agencies to work with willing private land owners to protect critical habitat and assist in recovery activities before the matter, by law, is an enforcement issue.

We should focus more intensely on providing incentives to encourage and foster the protection of wildlife and habitat on private property, working in concert with owners to the maximum extent possible.

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

In order to restore healthy and sustainable fish stocks, fishery managers, fisherman and other stakeholders must work together. Fishery issues are complex and the problems vary from region to region, so there is no one size fits all solution to declining fish stocks. As a result, the conservation and management of our fisheries resources should focus on long-term solutions based on the best available science and the characteristics of the fishery at issue. Moreover, such decisions must be consistent with the goals of the Magnuson/Stevens Act to prevent over fishing and rebuild over fished fisheries.

I was pleased to play a role in gaining passage and enactment of vital ocean and sealife conservation legislation.

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 would support fair reform requiring the payment of mining royalties provided such legislation takes into account the views of state and local officials in mining states and communities, does not endanger the jobs created by the mining industry or diminish the supply of vital minerals, extracted in an environmentally responsible way, necessary to meet our nation's vital needs.

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?

We should work to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Doing so is good for the environment, and can reduce costs to businesses and consumers by improving energy efficiency.

The question of whether human activity is altering the global climate is a scientific, not a political question. However, I have serious concerns that the Kyoto treaty does not assure the cooperation of countries such as China and India. A problem serious enough to require U.S. action, requires the responsible participation of other countries. Giving large nations a pass is bad environmental and economic strategy. And we must not undertake actions that have serious economic consequences without fully understanding and assessing the full range of ramifications.

As we work to understand fully the environmental and economic impacts of climate change and proposed responses, necessary remedies must garner the support of the public, be based on sound scientific consensus, produce cost-effective benefits, maximize market-based approaches, and be truly global. I was pleased to sponsor legislation during my Senate career to increase funds for global climate research and to address the problem of ozone depleting chemicals.

The United States should take the lead in developing the advanced emission control and energy efficient technology the world will increasingly depend upon, and we should work to assure the cooperation of other countries in addressing the challenges of the human impact on climate.

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

As Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee I will be holding comprehensive hearings on the fuel economy standards next year. We must fully understand the ramifications of changes in the CAFE standards including environmental cost-benefits, economic impact, and auto safety, before we are able to responsibly modify the law.

I have been and will continue to be a proponent of the CAFE program. I would work toward reform of CAFE standards that are practically achievable and balance environmental, safety and economic concerns. We must continue to work aggressively for improvements in combustion and emission control technology, including alternative fuels, that will enable us to reduce tailpipe pollution and greenhouse gases.

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

Only if strong scientific consensus concludes it is necessary and will be cost-effective in addressing bona fide environmental threats. Any requirements or initiatives designed to deal with carbon dioxide as a means of addressing the issue of global warming must assure that other nations are doing their fair share to address the problem, or U.S. efforts will be ineffectual.

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

Currently nuclear waste is being stored at power plants across the country posing a a more diverse and problematic environmental risk than if the waste were stored at a safe, environmentally sound and monitored central facility.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for establishing specifications and requirements to ensure the protection of public health and the environment in both the transportation and storage of nuclear waste. I support the imposition of vigorous, enforceable standards to assure safe and responsible storage and movement of this waste.

With respect to transportation corridors, it's important that the states and the public have meaningful input on appropriate routes through which waste must be moved.

The United States has safely transported thousands of shipments of spent nuclear fuel over U.S. highways and by rail since 1964, and I believe with continued vigilance we can continue to do so in a manner that fully protects human health and the environment.

I believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in consultation with federal, state and local law enforcement officials, the industry and other experts and stakeholders should routinely audit and reassess security and safety guidelines and assure that all necessary and prudent steps are taken to fully protect nuclear waste.

Yes.

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

First, I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the question that nuclear power will have a decreased role in our energy mix. While waste storage and proliferation issues present unique challenges, nuclear energy can play a key role in reducing pollution emissions and controlling releases of carbon dioxide.

I strongly believe that our nation benefits from and should have a competitive and diverse energy mix, including renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and others. I have been privileged to introduce and push for legislation providing incentives to develop such alternatives.

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

While local zoning and growth management issues are predominantly a matter for local officials and residents, the federal government can be a responsible partner in addressing local sprawl problems including reinvigorating the state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to aid state and local communities to preserve green space vital to improving quality of life in these areas.

While state and local governments are primarily responsible for making community growth decisions, urban sprawl is a serious concern in many areas. I believe the federal government should be a partner, where appropriate, in helping state and local residents and their elected authorities to meet their conservation goals.

I would add that I have supported the more flexible use of transportation assistance and I believe the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program which provides aid for less polluting forms of transportation has an important function.

In addition, I have supported legislation that would devolve the majority of gas tax revenues back to the states so that the decisions on how that money is used to improve highways and transportation systems can remain with state and local officials who know their needs best.

I would also mention, that I have and will continue to oppose pork barrel highway demonstration projects and other ventures earmarked in appropriations bills often outside of the applicable merit-based selection and funding processes, that in many cases circumvent public input and review.

Many brownfields are located in blighted areas that are or should be designated as enterprise zones-a designation that qualifies these areas for special federal aid, including tax assistance. In my view it is better to cleanup and redevelop a brownfield site rather than a green space that local residents may desire to preserve as such.

To help set aside open space, I would reinvigorate the state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

To protect water quality, I would ensure vigorous enforcement of the Clean Water Act, crack down on illegal discharges and use the powers and bully pulpit of the Presidency to see that we meet our conservation and environmental protection responsibilities.

To clean up abandoned industrial sites, I would focus appropriate urban renewal resources on the neediest areas and enterprise zones, and reform CERCLA and SARA to assure that more money goes to environmental cleanup rather than lawyers and administration--without undermining the essence of the polluter pays principles of hazardous waste cleanup laws.

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?

I recognize the important contribution that voluntary family planning programs can make to the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid programs and to helping stabilize world population growth to sustainable limits. Clearly, high rates of population growth are an immense barrier to economic and social change in developing countries. In addition, I also recognize that increased access to population planning programs can help reduce the number of abortions.

I have long supported the "Mexico City policy" of both the Reagan and Bush Administration, restricting funds for any non-governmental organizations that are involved in abortion activities. I will continue supporting voluntary family planning programs and believe that funding for population programs may increase if the Mexico City policy is followed.

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

I support sound international trade agreements established under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO). International trade rules should not and must not require the U.S. or any other country to abandon legitimate public health and environmental protection standards and I would work to see that U.S. and WTO policy reflect that ethic. In fact, Article XX of the WTO Agreement affirms the U.S. right to protect its environmental resources. No country, however, should be allowed to erect barriers under the guise of health or the environment for the real purpose of protectionism.

I support fast track negotiating authority because it is essential to achieving free trade agreements. However, I welcome greater public involvement and congressional oversight of all issues concerning our trade negotiations.

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

The protection of biodiversity is important both nationally and worldwide. Biological diversity not only means the protection of plant and wildlife species and vital ecosystems, but safeguarding resources that can hold wondrous new products, medications and scientific information of material use to mankind.

As President, I would certainly review the treaty and work with the signatories and the Senate to win ratification of a worthwhile Convention that serves our national interests and environmental values.

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?

Non-point source pollution, or "run-off" continues to be a large and growing part of the water quality problem. We will never meet our goals until this problem is addressed. As President I would seek the most appropriate, reasonable, and cost-effective remedies to the "runoff" water pollution problem. I would work for a program that can gain the cooperation of the agricultural community and other land based activities. Such consensus building offers the best hope of accomplishing our twin goals of a healthy environment and a thriving agricultural sector.

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

We should do a better job of protecting vital wetlands on federal land, and work through existing local, state and federal programs and statutes to appropriately protect these resources elsewhere. We should, however, also work with private property owners to help the vast majority of landowners who want to be good stewards to protect and improve existing wetlands and to create new riparian zones where appropriate and feasible.

Programs under the direction of non-governmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy's Streams of Life program and others should be encouraged and bolstered to help achieve our local, state and national goals.

I was pleased to help establish one of the first Riparian National Conservation Areas in the nation, in my home state of Arizona.

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 strongly support meeting the public health standards established pursuant to the Clean Air Act, in a manner that is as flexible, cost-beneficial and as performance-based as possible.

While standards must establish the level of air quality necessary to responsibly protect human health, as a matter of due course we must focus vigorous efforts on achieving the standards under existing law before we can successfully move on to standards that are considerably higher.

As President, I would work with the states, local communities and stakeholders to examine the cost-benefits of applying such standards to older power plants, as opposed to other pollution reduction options that may provide as great or higher benefits at a lower cost. And I would work toward the solution that best protects the public interest and meets the requirements of the law.

It is important to recognize that these older plants are higher polluting and have contributed to trans-boundary pollution that must be addressed. It should be a top clean air priority to resolve these disputes fairly and in a timely fashion.

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 fair and equitable implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act to protect public health by protecting the safety of our nation's food supply through the evaluation of pesticide uses. I support implementation of the Act in a way that not only ensures abundant, safe agricultural products, but also is fair to agricultural producers. It is important that we uphold the intent of the law in a way that protects public health, bases decisions on a sound scientific analysis, and includes transparent processes with full disclosure of decisions and the record of decision to the public.

Yes, unless there were compelling public-interest reasons for such a delay.

Yes. But such assessments should be made on the basis of sound scientific consensus and provide for the input of all affected parties.

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 believe in the public right to know. I also believe, however, that we should rely on sound science and qualified experts to instruct us on risk levels rather than unfounded speculation or conjecture.

I believe this is important to prevent unnecessary concern, assure that limited resources are used to address legitimate problems, and to preserve credibility so that the public is more likely to accept warnings about bona fide threats.

Yes, people should be informed of health risks associated with chemicals to which they have been exposed. However, such risks should be assessed according to legitimate scientific standards.

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?

We need to strengthen the Superfund Program to ensure that the sites are cleaned to appropriate, scientifically-based standards, in an efficient and cost-effective manner. To that end, I believe we need to reform the liability system under Superfund to ensure that responsible parties pay and properly fund the program.

Cleanup standards should fully protect public health and be relevant to the follow-on use of the property at issue.

Too often Superfund's system of retroactive, strict, joint and several liability entangles innocent property owners. At a minimum, we should exempt innocent owners of properties adjacent to contaminated sites and innocent property owners who exercise due diligence upon purchase. The inclusion of these people in the chain of liability adds significantly to the cost of litigation and does very little to aid in the cleanup of contaminated sites.

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

High standards of living are essential to providing the resources necessary to maintain a clean and healthy environment. Poverty is a poor caretaker. I believe by providing federal tax relief, starting with those who need it most, the lower and middle class, we can increase the income of families and keep the economy strong. A strong economy provides the resources necessary to tackle our highest priority and, in some cases, most expensive environmental priorities.

That's also why I believe education reform is so necessary. By providing children with the education they need to meet their goals and dreams, we will create a stronger society that better understands, appreciates and can afford the environmental protection we require.

In addition, I believe increased sunshine on environmental issues, coupled with broader and more nonpartisan treatment of these topics will provide a platform for meaningful and productive action these vital challenges.

I also believe that we must promote research and development on environmental technologies that can provide greater environmental benefits and lower cost for all Americans no matter their economic circumstances or where they live.

And, of course, the continual assessment and updating of our environmental statutes to assure we are meeting our goals fully, responsibly and fairly will help us achieve that vision.

It is a sad reality that people of lower economic means are, in many cases, more likely to face environmental threats-a situation we have an obligation to act upon. I would expand the goals of that order to identify and address adverse human health or environmental effects of government programs, policies and activities wherever they are found, regardless of the community affected. Every person regardless of his or her economic condition deserves to live in a community that is healthy, safe and environmentally sound.

In addition to the answer provided in 20(a) I would simply add that the federal government and its agencies must set the example for environmental compliance and responsibility. As President, I would see to it that's the case.

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?

My budget request would be based on a detailed understanding of our national needs and goals, the prioritization of those needs, and reconciliation of our requirements with the limited resources available to fund them.

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

I support the goals and Land and Water Conservation Fund, and believe it should be improved, particularly with respect to the state-side of the program. We should maximize yearly funding for the program, consistent with other needs and priorities. My budget request would be based on meeting highest priority needs consistent with sound and responsible stewardship of the environment as well as the Treasury.

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?

The right to own property is one of the most important rights secured under the nation's Constitution. People should receive adequate compensation when government actions restrict an individual's use of his or her property to the extent that a legitimate "taking" occurs. Local, state and federal governments must ensure that property owners are compensated in a manner consistent with judicial determinations and the dictates of the Constitution. I would support judicial procedures that facilitate the fair, timely and responsible adjudication of takings issues.

With respect to the adjudication of takings claims, I fear that directing such cases into the federal courts as a matter of first recourse would clog our already overburdened federal judiciary and delay adjudication of timely claims. However, because the "taking" of property is ultimately a Constitutional issue, complainants should have recourse to federal remedies if they are not satisfied through state and local procedures.

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

Yes. I oppose the practice of adding legislative riders to appropriations bills and any other attempt to circumvent a fair, open and deliberative process for consideration of new public laws. During my tenure in the Senate, I have reported to the public billions of dollars in erroneous low-priority earmarks and legislative riders contained in the annual appropriations bills. I also sponsored the line-item veto legislation, which permitted the President to veto individual line items in the budget that may be ill-considered or objectionable.

Yes. I would sign no bill I believed weakened our laws.

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

I would be very cautious about lowering any human health standard. Consideration of lowering such standards should be made only if the standard at issue is not based on a bona fide risk to human health.

As President, I would demand complete and accurate information on the cost as well as the benefits of every change in law before ordering such a modification.

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

I believe that the purposes of NEPA and the functions of the CEQ are vital, but I do not have an informed opinion on the adequacy of current staffing of 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?

I believe that economic progress and environmental protection are not only compatible, but vital to one another. Without a strong economy the public would be less prepared and willing to devote the resources necessary to achieve our environmental goals. Without a healthy and sustainable environment, we will deprive ourselves, and our children, of the natural resources upon which we depend, and that enrich the quality of our lives.

I will ensure that my policies recognize and support the inter-dependence of a healthy economy and quality environment.

I strongly believe that our environmental laws should be continuously assessed and updated to assure that we are establishing the proper national environmental goals to meet our stewardship obligation and that we are achieving our objectives as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.

One area I believe we must focus upon is to ensure that our laws and rules are more performance-based and that we focus better on outcomes rather than means. To that end we should work to instill greater flexibility to employ new approaches to meeting our standards and environmental goals.

Additionally, I believe we must reduce the delay and cost of resolving environmental conflicts. Often these issues lead to expensive and time consuming litigation which does little to help the environment. To help resolve environmental conflicts in a more timely and responsible fashion, I authored legislation, now law, establishing the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. I hope and expect that the Institute will be at the forefront of a new movement to engage affected parties and stake holders in resolving environmental conflicts through good-faith negotiation and consensus building.

Thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions, and for the commitment of your organization to a better environment for all Americans.

Back to Top