The fight wasn't pretty and it wasn't pleasant-but it was all done out in the open. That was before the range plan got to Washington, however. There it fell into the dark, secret recesses of the White House, where special-interest groups scurried about the halls lobbying the plan's fate out of public view. At some unknown point, Clinton "ripped up" the plan, according to his aide. So far there has been no real explanation of why or how. No expressed concern for the folks of Mountain Home. No indication of what the future holds. Idahoans thought they were engaging in an open democratic process when they took on the training range issue. Clinton owes them a detailed explanation for handing it back in a "ripped up" heap. Mr. RUDY DELEON, Under Secretary, U.S. Air Force, Pentagon. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, DEAR MR. DELEON: After yesterday's withdrawal by the Air Force from our cooperative training range proposal, I decided to go on to other things and not comment on the action further, but your totally false statement in this morning's paper prompts me to once again set the record straight. You were quoted as saying, "... but the key point is that the Interior Department has not yet signed off on its portion." Rudy, you and I both know that is not true. When Interior sent the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Environmental Policy Center in the White House, it did so with the clear selection of the Air Force's preferred alternative as Interior's choice also. Katie McGinty's "green machine" took over and made a political decision not to approve Interior's decision. Interior's recommendation was based on professional, qualified land managers' decisions after 3 years of study and many changes. McGinty's decision was based on environmental politics. For you now to lay the Air Force's fiasco at Interior's door is dishonest, and we both know it. You then explained your actions to me as, "just a loyal member of the Administration, trying to resolve the situation." I, too, am a loyal Democrat, but I'm not a blind Democrat who sits idly by while a band of well-meaning young political activists destroy the image of our party while totally ignoring the statutory procedural requirements and substituting their own decisions. The Air Force didn't even receive consideration. Your professionals took a President with a history of avoiding service in Vietnam and gave him a D-Day observance that was a grand media event to improve an image that had suffered at the hands of the veterans' organizations. Then when you asked for fair consideration of the Idaho Training Range proposal, you, too, got stiffed. Rudy, if you are a loyal member of the Administration, please advise them that they are destroying us. If the election were held today, Bill Clinton couldn't carry a single State west of the Mississippi River with the possible exception of California. Many of my colleagues and I have discussed this privately, but it appears we have to go public in order to bring about change. Please let me assure you that these comments are not just sour grapes because of how I've been treated. If you choose to discuss this with someone in the White House, the following is a partial list of other actions that have created this situation in the West: 1. Misinterpreting the "old growth" issue in western Oregon and Washington and holding secret sessions to bring about a paper written by a closeted group of people who really don't understand the entire issue and the historical actions of the Northwest. 2. U.S. Forest Service's PACFISH program being_implemented east of the Cascades, using environmental criteria that do not fit the country east of the coastal range. 3. The appointment of Reagan/Bush Republicans to major resource positions in the West: Randy Hardy to the Bonneville Power Administration; Rollie Schmitten, a Republican state senator, to head up the National Marine Fisheries Service in Commerce. 4. The salmon recovery responsibilities being given to these people who have no concern for fish or for humans. 5. Screwing up the Grazing Land Reform to the point that we lost everything by going against the advice of people who care more about resource management reform than retribution. As it ended up, we got nothing in the way of improved resource management. 6. Same actions with reform of the Mining Law of 1872. We could have achieved the resource protection and reclamation amendments, but now we have the same antiquated law. I could go on, but you get the idea. This situation will continue to get worse until something changes. I do not want to be a part of handing my future to the Bob Doles of the world. Sincerely, CECIL D. ANDRUS, Governor. Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Senator Kempthorne. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, and obviously, all of us here very much welcome you, Ms. McGinty. We are very honored to have you here. You have an extremely important task ahead of you. It is a very important position and we wish you very well. Second, we are honored to have your family here. Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you. Senator BAUCUS. On several occasions-they don't know this, but on several occasions I have seen you and your family together, and I've seen as I do here now this morning-the glow, the pride; they swell up with tremendous pride in what you've been doing. This is really a big leap is it Pennsylvania that you're from? Ms. MCGINTY. Yes. Senator BAUCUS. That's right. I know how very proud they are of what you have done. I know how proud you are about it. I needn't remind you-other Senators have said it, and it's all very obvious-the problems we face now are much more complex, much more difficult than they were, say, 10, 15, 20 years ago. Back then, it was pretty easy to try to clean up our rivers, our streams, clean up the air, try to clean up some waste that had been dumped on the ground. The fact is, our air is cleaner now, about 20 years later, since our environmental statutes were enacted, and our water is cleaner. We have a long way to go, but it is cleaner, even though our population has dramatically increased, even though productivity in industry has increased. Our efforts in the environment have increased. So there are tremendous reasons for being somewhat proud, as our country should be, in how much we have succeeded in getting the air cleaner and the water cleaner. On the other hand, now we are running into a whole different level of a much more complex set of problems. There are biocumulative problems, for example, and as technology advances, we try to find ways not only to make the air a little cleaner yet and the water cleaner yet, but in a much more flexible way to deal with all the new opportunities that are available to individuals and to businesses to try to make a better product in a more efficient and competitive way. It's incredibly difficult to deal with all these new complexities. I'm not sure we have the tools, the standards, the brainwork, the paradigm, or the format to deal with them. But I know from your background that you are more than equipped to deal with this, and certainly sensitive to all this. I wish you the very best. I would sum up by saying that this committee will work with you, and we urge you to be candid and forthright and tell us about the problems you are having, as well as the successes that you have you have no other choice and I wish you the very best. Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you. [Letters submitted for the record by Senator Baucus follow:] PAUL C. JONES 2021 Washington Avenue Golden, Colorado 80401 September 21, 1995 The Honorable Max Baucus United States Senate Washington, D. C. Re: VIA FAX & MAIL Confirmation Hearings of Katie McGinty As Dear Senator Baucus: I am concerned about recent statements of Katie McGinty, nominee for Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. These statements indicate a distinct bias against the ongoing NEPA process for the New World Gold Project near Cooke City, Montana. In a public presentation on environmental policy Tuesday, September 19, 1995 in Washington, D.C. Ms. McGinty responded to a question from a member of the audience "What will you do to stop a Canadian company from developing the mine outside Yellowstone Park". McGinty responded to this question with several statements, including: * Ms. "We are working with American Rivers and the Governors of the affected states...", "We move must forward without political interference...there will be a policy judgement that will happen later...this is not yet the time for a policy judgement." This response "implies" the Administration plans to forgo the results of Environmental Impact Statement currently in preparation if the results of that EIS indicate the project can be constructed and operated in an environmentally acceptable manner. I certainly hope this is not the case. Later in her response to the same question, Ms. McGinty stated this situation "underscores the outrage of the mining law... to turn over one of our crown jewels to mining development...allowing a Canadian company to take $10 billion out of the ground in The Honorable Max Baucus Confirmation Hearings of Katie McGinty Page 2 These exchange for $9,000..." "In the current situation our hands are tied." latter statements truly illustrate a misunderstanding, or deliberate misstatement, of the relation of U.S. environmental law versus an individuals right to develop a mineral property under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. The Clinton Administration has consistently and deliberately confused these two separate issues, and apparently Ms. McGinty will continue to do so in her tenure within the Administration. We need an individual as Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality who understands the technical issues of the various facets of the environment. but who is not driven by political motivation; an individual who will allow free enterprise, such as the New World Project, to operate if it can be done in an environmentally acceptable manner not killed because of its proximity to Yellowstone Park, or because it is not favored by a political group such as American Rivers. Please question Ms. McGinty carefully related to her views as expressed against this project and determine if she can function in the Chairman's role in a truly unbiased, non-political fashion. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Yours very truly, Paul C. Jones |