about, rebuilding that habitat; trail maintenance; those kinds of outdoor jobs, in the woods, are a large part of the initiative.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I might add on trail maintenance that the Senate has now funded the trail system. The House has been silent on that. You could put in a good word

Ms. MCGINTY. I'd be happy to.

Senator KEMPTHORNE [continuing]. Because, again, a diverse group of people. There are those who like motorized trails, and they would just as soon not be in conflict with people who are hikers or equestrians. We can separate them by using, from the dedicated trust fund, what was passed by Congress in 1991, but really has never been appropriated.

Let me talk about salmon for just a minute. Am I correct in assuming that you recommended your deputy in the White House, Will Stelle, to be the Region X Administrator for National Marine Fisheries Service?

Ms. MCGINTY. At the request of the Department of Commerce, yes, I supported Will's nomination.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. OK. Are you familiar with the salmon issue?

Ms. MCGINTY. I am not an expert, Senator, but yes, I am familiar.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Are you aware of testimony that this committee received that one of the major results of the spill policy is that it actually killed the very salmon that it sought to save, and that a number of scientists and Administration officials believe that spilling water was an experiment that never should have been allowed to happen?

Ms. MCGINTY. I am well aware, first of all, Senator, of your leadership on this issue and the hearing that you chaired, and the significant difference in opinion on whether spill helps the fish or, through gas bubble disease and other things, is a threat to the fish, yes.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Because again, at that very table, when we discussed this with representatives from the Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service-yes, again, the very species that we're trying to save were spilled, and other species were killed, and it was an experiment. We talk about using good science, I think that certainly in Idaho we can't afford to do this, and we can't afford to keep spilling our water in the name of experimentation.

So again, I would hope that as we aggressively pursue other actions, such as the innovations of modifications to the dams, surface collection, etc., fish-friendly turbines, that we can see a real advocate and friend in the White House helping us on this.

Ms. MCGINTY. Senator, I hope that I will be there in order to be a friend and an advocate on these issues and others. Senator KEMPTHORNE. OK.

Just to conclude, then-and I appreciate that you've fielded a lot of questions; you've done it in a fine fashion, and to your family, I hope you realize that I'm not picking on Katie.

[Laughter.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. I think this has demonstrated the seriousness and the complexity of these environmental issues. I don't

think we've had balance in the environmental debate. Unfortunately, if you sit on this side, you then look like you are anti-environment, and that's absolutely false. If you sit on this side, you look like you are anti-industry or anti-business, and I don't think that is correct, either.

So somehow we have to work this out. You have the background and ability, but I hope you've seen from the questions that I've pointed out-I think citizens on some of these issues feel that they are at odds with their own Government. I think that in some of these issues you have been part of that process, or the interruption of the process.

So in the nature of this hearing, I wanted to point that out.

Finally, I wish the Administration had not waited 2 years to send up your nomination, and I wish the Administration had not proceeded with a recess appointment. I say that because if we did not have these delays, it would have been possible to discuss the Integral Fast Reactor, the Idaho Training Range, the timber sales, the hydropower, the salmon issues, while they were current instead of us all now either saying, "Well, isn't it a shame that happened," and I kept hearing about Katie McGinty. So now, at least, it's the right forum. It took too long for the White House to get to this point.

Ms. MCGINTY. Senator, I would look forward to being available to you or your staff on those issues which I think will continue in one form or another, and the new issues that no doubt will arise. Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right. Potentially I will have some further questions that I would give to you in writing, if you could return those.

Of course, there will be no action taken today as far as a vote; it was never intended today.

Senator Lieberman, do you have any final comment?

Senator LIEBERMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to thank you for the way in which you have conducted the hearing and to say that I think that you end up on a point of mutual understanding and common purpose. I must say, picking up on a question you asked before, it does seem to me that maybe I'm a little biased here, but any reasonable person viewing this hearing would conclude that we all have and hopefully, after confirmation will continue to havea friend and an advocate, to use those two terms, in this Administration, and a very fair-minded friend, at that.

So I thank you. I wish you well, Ms. McGinty.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHAFEE. Senator Lieberman, thank you for your participation. It was very helpful.

Katie, to wrap this up, the risk analysis that you talked about with Senator Inhofe, would you be supporting my legislation on the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act?

Ms. MCGINTY. Well, I'm very encouraged to hear that you and Senator Chafee have come up with an initiative. We are very anxious to work with you to reauthorize and to reform that legislation. We will be anxious, actually, to see the text, but we are very eager to work with you on that, yes.

Senator LIEBERMAN. She's pretty demanding, in asking to see the text, don't you think?

[Laughter.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. And the Administration has seen it. We've been working with them.

Ms. MCGINTY. Yes. I understand, yes.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Do you believe CEQ should be abolished? Ms. MCGINTY. Not at all, Senator. I think CEQ performs an extremely important, unique, and essential role as we try to end the kind of polarization that you are rightly pointing to, and insist that a harmonization of our objectives comes about. CEQ is the institution that can do that. It can't be done through any of the particular individual line agencies.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Will that counterpart function cease in the White House?

Ms. MCGINTY. It has ceased, Senator, yes. As soon as the President submitted my nomination to you, we dissolved the White House Office, so that-in response to your first point-there would only be one voice on these issues.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. OK. All right.

I thank you very much. I thank all of you who are in attendance today, and certainly the family members. She did well.

I will note that the hearing record will be kept open through the close of business Friday so that any Senators wishing to submit questions to you may do so, and you could respond.

Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. With that, the hearing is adjourned.

Ms. MCGINTY. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Statements and materials submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN A. MCGINTY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, Members of the Committee:

I am deeply honored to have the opportunity today to be considered for the position of Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Particularly in light of the tremendous press of business before the Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you.

I would like to thank my husband, Karl Hausker, and my family, many of whom are here with me today. I have been richly blessed by them all: my parents, my nine brothers and sisters, and now by my brothers- and sisters-in-law and my 18 nieces and nephews. Each one has been an inspiration and a constant source of support to me.

It is, indeed, an honor to have the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of such distinguished predecessors as Michael Deland, Russell Train, Russell Peterson, and the other distinguished CEQ Chairs. Their service is testimony to the noble, butI believe, often misunderstood mission of CEQ. As this Committee is well aware, but contrary to what is often presumed, CEQ is not a regulatory body, nor is protecting the environment its sole mission. Rather, CEQ's mandate is to bring social, economic, and environmental priorities into "productive harmony."1 As articulated by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, "An environmental policy is a policy for people. Its primary concern is with man and his future.” 2

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which created CEQ, was intended by its authors "to make more rational the process by which the Federal Gov

1 Title 1, Section 101 [42 USC S 4331]. Congressional Declaration of National Environmental Policy.

2 From introduction to the conference committee report on National Environmental Policy Act to the Senate, 115 Congressional Record, 40,416 (1969).

ernment makes decisions. CEQ grew out of centrist traditions that saw economic and social aspirations of Americans as integral to the quality of life and the environment." 3

Early in this Administration, the President proposed to transfer CEQ's NEPA functions to EPA and its policy advisory functions to a newly created White House Office on Environmental Policy. The President's goal was to integrate environmental policy into economic, domestic, and other policy priorities, and achieve a balance among them, rather than allow collisions to continue. What we did not appreciate, however, is that CEQ's mandate is, in fact, to take on exactly that role. Moreover, as a statutorily created, permanent body, CEQ has a superior ability to achieve the integration we were looking for. Several of you, especially Senators Chafee and Baucus, had reservations from the beginning, and ultimately impressed upon us the importance of keeping an independent CEQ within the Executive Office of the President, with a Senate-confirmed Chair. As you pointed out in a letter to the President, this structure, better than a White House Office, provides the type of objective analysis of environmental policies and venue for open communication between the Administration and the Congress, industry, interest groups and individual citizens, which is essential to informing policy and striking the right balance.

I believe strongly in CEQ's mission. The challenge of harmonizing our economic, environmental and social aspirations, important throughout CEQ's history, is today more pressing than ever.

During my tenure as Chair of CEQ, and before that as Director of the White House Office on Environmental Policy, I have seen some of this challenge first hand. At Federal facilities across the country, we have brought communities together with the Departments of Defense and Energy. Breaking down long-standing barriers of distrust, we forged plans to clean up the facilities, but also quickly to bring them back into productive use. Similarly, we have brought landowners together with the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Overcoming apprehensions and antagonisms, we have reached agreements that protect natural resources, but also allow development to proceed with “no surprises"-in other words, once an agreement is implemented, the government will not return with more demands for endangered species.

If confirmed as Chair of CEQ, I will work to make these examples the rule, rather than the exception. By bringing people together rather than allowing hostility and ignorance to keep them apart, we can unleash the good will, the creative energy, the enthusiasm and drive that are essential to achieving the productive harmony and balance that NEPA calls for.

In pursuing its mission, CEQ serves as the President's adviser on environmental policy, and as coordinator of environmental policy among the various agencies. CEQ also oversees implementation of NEPA, and prepares an annual report on environmental quality trends. After familiarizing the Committee with my personal and professional history, I will discuss these statutory functions.

PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

In addition to my professional experience in environmental policy in the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government, my earlier academic and professional work has afforded me a breadth of experience that enables me to appreciate the linkages between, and the need for balance among our social, environmental, and economic objectives.

As an undergraduate, I attended Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia, and majored in chemistry. During 3 of my 4 years of study at Saint Joseph's, I worked for the Atlantic Richfield Chemical Company (herein, ARCO). My first exposure to environmental policy came during this experience. My introduction to the Clean Air Act, for example, resulted from an assignment to develop, through the application of polymeric chemistry, a coal dust suppressant that could assist ARCO in meeting ambient air quality standards at its coal mining operations in Eastern Wyoming. This experience was particularly gratifying for several reasons. First, a commercially viable product was developed from these efforts. Second, the use of this product saved ARCO money because less coal was lost in transport. And third, and perhaps most important to me personally, I was able to draw on the experience of two of my brothers who work as coal miners in Wyoming, one at the same facility with which I was assigned to work, the Black Thunder Mine.

Similarly, my introduction to waste treatment laws came in the context of my work with municipalities that were cooperating with ARCO in the development of chemical waste treatment processes.

CEQ REVISTED: The Role of the Council on Environmental Quality by Boyd Gibbons.

I was drawn to public policy because, like many in industry, I was concerned that America was losing its competitive edge in the commercialization of several critical scientific and technological products, and that this experience might be repeated in newly emerging fields. For example, at the time, the U.S. share of the world market for semiconductors was declining from a peak of 90 percent to about 5 percent. Biotechnology, however, was only just appearing on the scene. I wanted to help ensure that America would not lose its position in this industry as well.

I studied law in order to understand how law and public policy affect the viability of our nation's industry, especially nascent industries founded on breakthroughs in basic science. I entered Columbia University because it had just launched a concentrated program in Science, Law and Technology. While in law school, I also continued my study of chemistry and biotechnology in the Biology Department. To enhance my understanding of issues related to the commercialization of scientific and technological products, I worked in one of the major law firms specializing in patent, trademark, and copyright law, Cooper, Dunham, and Moran.

Upon graduation from law school, I had the privilege of serving as a law clerk to the Honorable H. Robert Mayer, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Again, I focused on commercial science and technology, as the bulk of the Court's docket involves Patent and Trademark appeals.

Because my interest rested at the intersection between technology and policy, I sought an opportunity to work for the Congress. I applied for and received the Congressional Fellowship of the American Chemical Society (ACS). This fellowship was created in 1970 in order to help ensure that environmental laws would be informed by the best science.

I spent my ACS fellowship year in the office of then-Senator Albert Gore. At that time, Senator Gore chaired a Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, and most of my responsibilities were related to the work of that Subcommittee. I drafted legislation to enhance science education; contributed to a bill, now law, that modified the antitrust laws to allow industries to undertake cooperative research efforts in pre-commercial phases of technology development; and to efforts aimed at strengthening process (as distinct from product) patents. At the conclusion of my fellowship year, Senator Gore asked me to serve as his Senior Advisor on Environment and Energy issues.

Because of my background, I undertook this new charge inclined to seek out the views of industry and the scientific community. But, with the diversity and moment of the issues that would now cross my desk I quickly learned the value, indeed the necessity, of working with the broad spectrum of interests and constituencies. From addressing the concerns of Tennesseans regarding clean up of Oak Ridge and those of mayors about dwindling landfill space, to discerning the objectives of foreign governments as I worked with the U.S. State Department to prepare a bipartisan U.S. Senate Delegation to travel to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, it was critical to seek out experienced, thoughtful perspectives. That experience has been enhanced and intensified in my work in the executive

branch.

ADVISING THE PRESIDENT

As pointed out in a recent report on CEQ prepared for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, "being a small institution free of program responsibilities and agency bias, CEQ is uniquely suited to challenge agency assumptions, bring objectivity to policy formulation, and improve government decisionmaking."4 In my tenure as Chair of CEQ, and previously as Director of the White House Office on Environmental Policy, I have worked at the President's direction to challenge the status quo and bring innovation to bear on environmental policy.

In the natural resources area for example, I have worked with various agencies to promote the use of "habitat conservation plans (HCPs)." Through these plans, agencies work cooperatively with landowners; take a broader view that avoids specie-by-specie crises; and eliminate duplication of, or conflict in, their efforts. While only a handful of HCP's had been concluded prior to our effort, we have nearly 200 HCPs either underway or completed.

Just recently, I travelled to Southern California where I joined one of the largest California real estate developers in signing an agreement that protects critical habitat but allows the developer to proceed in building several thousand new homes. Similarly, in Washington State, I signed an agreement with the Murray Pacific Timber Company that affords the company a 100-year “no surprises” guarantee that,

• Ibid.