[Senate Hearing 108-524]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-524
SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE TO BE SOLICITOR,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
__________
MARCH 11, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-750 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 2
Reynolds, David L., Director of Federal Affairs, Association of
California Water Agencies, Letter.............................. 10
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
Woolridge, Sue Ellen, Nominee To Be Solicitor, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 2
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 11
NOMINATION OF SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE TO BE SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. I will call the committee to order please.
Good afternoon, Ms. Wooldridge.
Ms. Wooldridge. Good afternoon.
Senator Thomas. Welcome to this hearing to consider your
nomination to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.
Rules of the committee, which apply to all nominees,
require they be sworn in in connection with the testimony. So
if you would please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about the give
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Wooldridge. Yes.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Please be seated.
Before you begin your statement, I would ask three
questions that are addressed, again, to each nominee.
Will you be available to appear before this committee and
other congressional committees to represent departmental
positions and respond to issues of concern to Congress?
Ms. Wooldridge. Yes, I will.
Senator Thomas. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict or
create the appearance of such a conflict, should you be
confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President?
Ms. Wooldridge. No, Senator. I have reviewed those with
counselors for the Department and ethics counselors, and with
regard to my investments and interests, I do not believe there
are any conflicts of interest.
Senator Thomas. Great, thank you.
Are you involved or do you have any assets held in blind
trusts?
Ms. Wooldridge. No, I do not.
Senator Thomas. I know that you have been working for the
past several years in the Secretary's office. You are aware, of
course, of the magnitude of the position for which you are
being considered.
Ms. Wooldridge. Yes.
Senator Thomas. My friend, Tom Sansonnetti, left my office
to do this job sometime back, as a matter of fact.
Ms. Wooldridge. I am aware of that.
Senator Thomas. The issues you will have to address are
extremely important to the States of all us and particularly on
this committee, and I commend you for being willing to
undertake this responsibility. At the same time, of course, we
want you to be mindful of our intense interest in the decisions
you are making. I encourage you to work closely with each of
us, and I know that you will.
Let me turn now to Senator Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much. I welcome the
nominee. I had the chance to visit with Ms. Wooldridge earlier
and had a chance to ask some questions at that time. This is a
very important position and one that I think this committee
takes a great interest in. I do have a few questions that I
will ask when we get to that part of the program here, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Fine.
If you would care to go ahead, if you have a statement,
why, we would be delighted to hear from you.
TESTIMONY OF SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE, NOMINEE TO BE SOLICITOR,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Wooldridge. Thank you, yes. I have a few remarks.
Good afternoon to you, Senator Thomas, you, Senator
Bingaman, members absent of the committee. I want to thank you
for providing me this opportunity to appear today. It is a
privilege and I especially wish to thank you both and Senator
Domenici's staff for all their fine work in helping to get me
around to meet people before this hearing.
It is the highest honor of my professional life to have
been nominated by the President to be the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior. I ask your consent to the
nomination.
Since my nomination, a number of people have asked me why I
would like to be the Solicitor of the Department. The simple
answer is that in the 3 years I have been there, I have
developed a great appreciation for the mission of the
Department and I view the Solicitor primarily as a servant to
assist the Secretary, the management, and the employees of the
Department in fulfilling their mission.
The Solicitor's Office handles a wide variety of legal
matters, as you are aware. As a lawyer, I also have a wide
variety of legal experience. In my career, among other things,
I have dealt with the law of insurance, antitrust, contracts,
trademark, conflicts of interest, endangered species, NEPA,
elections, employment, CRCLA, FLPMA, nonprofit institutions, to
name a few. I have come to know well State water law, Federal
reserved water rights, and reclamation law.
I have worked on cases large and small in both the State
and Federal courts. I was intimately involved in the $200
billion settlement between the States and the tobacco industry.
I was involved in the largest False Claims Act recovery for the
State of California, and I also once handled a case involving
two neighbors fighting over a dog that was barking.
At the Department of the Interior, I have handled matters
of national significance, and I have also had the unenviable
task of assigning office and parking spaces to political
appointees. As the Secretary's Deputy Chief of Staff and
Counselor for the last 3 years, I have had the responsibility
for a number of issues that, due to the cross-cutting nature of
them and the problems that they had, in the interest of our
bureaus, who were at times at conflicting purposes, they had to
be managed at the departmental level. I have also overseen the
Secretary's Indian Water Rights Office which manages yet
another set of issues often involving cross-cutting issues of
interest to the Department.
On the personal side, there are just two things I would
like for you to know about me. As a youth, I spent the greater
part of every summer and holiday traveling around the Western
United States, hiking, camping, fishing, and boating in many of
the public lands and waters and parks in those States. My
father was an avid fishermen. My mother is an amateur
naturalist and a lover of animals. Their interests imparted in
me a lifelong devotion to the very lands, resources, and waters
that we manage at the Department of the Interior.
Secondly, throughout my life I have enjoyed participating
in team sports, at times as a member and at other times as a
captain of the team. My experience in sports has influenced how
I work as a lawyer. I have a reputation for being fair and a
good listener. I freely give credit to those who do the work
and deserve the praise. I prefer resolution to conflict, but I
am prepared to rest on principle where it is appropriate. I
enjoy debate but eschew ad hominem attack. I prefer action over
inaction, and I believe that communication is central to our
ability to successful in our endeavors.
I thank you again for honoring me with this opportunity
today. Should you support my nomination and the Senate votes to
confirm me, I pledge to carry out my responsibility with
dedication and integrity.
I am ready to answer the questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wooldridge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Nominee To Be Solicitor,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman and members of the Committee, I am
honored to appear here today as President Bush's nominee to be the
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. I ask for your consent to
the President's nomination.
As the chief legal officer for the Department, the Solicitor plays
an important part in the management of the complex responsibilities
entrusted to the Department of the Interior. The Solicitor also must be
able to provide unbiased and intellectually honest counsel to the
Secretary and subordinate officers of the Department. I thank you for
this opportunity to present my views and qualifications for this
position.
For the past three years, I have served as Secretary Norton's
Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor, providing the opportunity for
first-hand experience and a birds-eye view of the complex and often
conflicting legal and policy issues` facing the Department. As
Counselor, I have managed multiple matters spanning the varying
interests and jurisdictions of the numerous bureaus of this agency. I
have also acted with oversight responsibilities for the Secretary's
Office of Indian Water Rights
I have been intimately involved in issues affecting the Klamath
Basin. Within the Basin, the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction
touches the management of important facilities and lands, or impacts
the trusts of Indian Nations and peoples--five National Wildlife
Refuges, five Indian tribes, one reach of a Wild and Scenic River,
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, one National Park, a
large Bureau of Reclamation irrigation project, a number of endangered
or threatened species, and several national forests. Working through
the issues in the Klamath Basin has exemplified for me the need to work
cooperatively, as we embrace our multiple responsibilities. We must
reach balanced solutions that meet our serious and important legal
obligations, while being mindful of the real social, cultural, and
environmental impacts of our decisions.
While the Klamath Basin problems are an example, they are not
unique. Managing the Department of the Interior and its bureaus is
often a balancing act, which demands a careful and reasoned response to
competing interests and legal obligations. While I have not had
operational responsibility for any bureau or office within Interior,
the characteristics needed to fulfill the role of Solicitor are clear
to me--sound judgment, courage, an open mind, administrative
experience, wide-ranging legal experience, patience, and a sense of
humor. I have these characteristics and am qualified to perform as
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.
The Solicitor manages an operation involving thousands of
administrative and judicial matters and hundreds of attorneys and
supporting staff. While particular resource matters may receive an
enormous amount of press and public attention, much of the work
performed by dedicated staff of the Office, though low in profile, is
ongoing and remains important to the Department and those involved. The
Office of the Solicitor considers matters relating to labor and
employment, ethics and conflicts of interest, patents and trademarks,
procurement contracts, acquisition agreements, water contracts, tort
claims, partnership and volunteer agreements, and opinions and
correspondence. In addition to my current work at the Department, my
previous work experience has given me a background in many of these
areas.
I have been in private practice, both as an associate and as a
partner of a law firm. My practice included litigation in State and
Federal courts and included, but was not limited to, contracts
interpretation and enforcement, business torts, trademark infringement,
labor and employment matters, and trust management enforcement.
I also worked for the State of California at the Department of
Justice and for the State's Fair Political Practices Commission. While
with California's Department of Justice, my work covered several legal
specialties--the areas of public rights enforcement, non-profit
charitable institution conversions, insurance insolvency actions, State
constitutional privacy litigation, qui tam/false claim litigation,
initiative and referendum litigation, and equal protection challenges.
At the Commission, as the general counsel, I oversaw the legal
department's work in the area of conflicts of interest and campaign
finance reporting.
That concludes my summary of my professional experience. As I am
here today to ask your consent to my nomination, let me tell you
something about my personal side.
I was born in Riverside, California, lived until I was nine in
Carpenteria, (Southern) California, and until I was eighteen in Glenn
County, (Northern) California. I was born the youngest of four children
to Robert and Patricia Wooldridge. Both were public educators, which
meant that I received great guidance and their time. We were lucky to
be in a position to partake of travels all over the West, particularly
in the summer when the family could take advantage of this country's
great natural resources. During these special times, I had the
opportunity to enjoy our National Parks and other public lands, which
are so important to our understanding of which we are as a nation and
the values we all hold dear. I have hiked in our monuments, ridden
horses in our forests, camped alongside clear cold alpine lakes and
water-skied on many Reclamation reservoirs. I have viewed the beauty of
the Grand Tetons and looked in awe up Yosemite Valley and Hetch Hetchy.
I have enjoyed visits to Indian Country in Arizona and Montana, camped
in freezing cold in New Mexico, fished in cool streams teeming with
trout in Idaho, and gone crabbing in Oregon and clamming in Washington.
I realize today how important those travels were to my understanding of
the importance of our obligation to be wise stewards of the public's
lands and resources.
Through my travels and under my parents' tutelage, I developed an
appreciation of the need for wise management and conservation of our
natural resources and our obligation to lives other than our own. My
parents owned a small farm in Northern California. We raised chickens,
cows, sheep, horses and geese; and we raised milo for a nearby dairy.
Growing up in a rural agricultural community teaches many things, not
the least of which is the necessity to nurture the environment that
sustains us. It teaches responsibility and consistency. These, too, are
qualities a Solicitor should bring to the position.
I will always be grateful to my Mother and Father for giving me
that special and wonderful upbringing and with providing me with my
sense of responsibility.
Should this Committee support this nomination, and should the
Senate vote to confirm me, I pledge to carry out my responsibilities
with dedication and integrity. Thank you for your consideration. I
stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. Well, if you have
dealt with the dog issue and the parking, why, you are ready,
are you not?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Wooldridge. They in some ways were much worse than
those others.
Senator Thomas. Well, we are delighted that you are here. I
mentioned Tom Sansonnetti. Bill Myers is also someone that has
some connection with Wyoming, as you may know.
Ms. Wooldridge. Yes.
Senator Thomas. I hope that there are not as many cases as
there have been, but I suspect there will continue to be. I am
one who believes that many of these land use, particularly, and
environmental issues should be handled other than in the
courts. Nevertheless, many are and so on.
One currently that is difficult is the snow machine thing
in Yellowstone Park, where currently, as I understand it, there
is still some tension between the court here and the court in
Wyoming, and it kind of leaves the park without any assurance
of where they are going to be. Quite frankly, I just wrote to
the Secretary urging that they go ahead with a plan so that
people can know what is going to happen next season, even
though this season is over.
Do you have any reaction to that kind of an arrangement
with the courts?
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, I think it is unfortunate that we
have two conflicting orders that we are trying to obey. I think
that our goal at this point is to try to get something in place
so that there is certainty for the communities and the people
who are interested in that issue.
Senator Thomas. I hope so.
I introduced a bill today, as a matter of fact, which says
in essence that when there is an interest in something in the
public lands that is in a particular area, that the court in
that area should be the court that deals with it, at least in
that circuit. So I do not know where we will go with it, but we
are going to try and do something.
How do you react to that?
Ms. Wooldridge. I think it is an interesting issue. I have
not given a huge amount of thought to it, but I think it would
be an interesting proposition to look into.
Senator Thomas. I hope so.
Well, we are also, of course, in a difficult situation with
respect to doing something with abandoned mine lands. We had a
hearing here this morning. It is an interesting thing in that
we have a law that will expire this year. In the law it says
half of the fee is supposed to be back to the State. That has
not been the case. So we are trying to work that out. I guess
it is not a legal issue at this point, but we certainly are
looking forward to some assistance from the Department.
The administration has a bill in I think, as a matter of
fact, that is oriented toward Pennsylvania when the basic
dollars for this proposition come from the West.
Ms. Wooldridge. I understand.
Senator Thomas. So we may have a little disagreement with
the administration's point of view on that. Do you have any
feeling about it?
Ms. Wooldridge. No, other than the fact that I was a little
disappointed that I guess Mr. Jarrett got everybody stirred up
a little this morning. But, no, seriously I know that is a
really important issue to many of the States, and I know we
wish to work as hard as we can with you to try to come to some
agreement because I believe our interests are mutual in this
and we need to just figure out how to get there.
Senator Thomas. Yes, I think that is probably true.
Let me ask Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Let me ask first about a disagreement we have had with some
in the Interior Department about the effect of language in the
Freedom of Information Act. The Department recently took the
position, to justify withholding information that I had
requested, that said there was a prior Solicitor's
interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act that gave them
authority to withhold information from Members of Congress. I
asked Secretary Norton about this when she testified last
month. She apologized for that position, as I understood her
comments, and said that they would be responding more rapidly
and completely to future questions.
Do you agree that the Freedom of Information Act does not
give the Department authority to withhold information from
Congress whether it is the majority or the minority? And will
you support what I understood the Secretary's position to be,
that questions from Members of Congress need to be answered?
Ms. Wooldridge. Senator, thank you for asking me this
question. As I think we mentioned in the meeting I had with
you, I was not involved in the decision that led to the writing
of the correspondence in response to your request. I clearly
support the Secretary's position.
In terms of the legal aspect, I have not analyzed that. I
would be pleased to do so with you or your staff, if I am
confirmed as Solicitor.
Senator Bingaman. That would be very helpful. I think it
would be good if there is a disagreement about what the law
authorizes the Department to do in the withholding of
information from Congress, we need to know that and take action
to change the law, if the support were there.
Let me ask also or just maybe flag for you a concern many
of us have had, that major policy announcements out of the
Department seem to come out on Friday afternoons or on the eve
of a holiday, with no notice to any of us in the Congress or
our staffs that they are coming. Obviously, we would appreciate
any kind of commitment or promise you could make to consult
with us on significant matters. I am not talking about the
insignificant ones, but consult with us prior to finalizing
those actions so that we have some idea that this is going to
be forthcoming. Is that something you could agree to do?
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, I think that as a matter of courtesy,
we should be informing you as to when we make these decisions.
I do not believe I am prepared to say that we should not go
forward with them if we have not effectively communicated, but
if we are doing our jobs properly, we should be effectively
communicating. So when those decisions are made, you should be
aware of them, even if you are not necessarily in support of
them or happy with them.
Senator Bingaman. No, I understand. I am not suggesting you
change the decisions, but I am just urging that we have better
information as to the timing of your decisions.
One other area. In your present position at the Department
of the Interior, you are responsible for the Indian water
rights settlement program. Is that right?
Ms. Wooldridge. I am the counselor. We have a director of
that office and I am the liaison, as the counselor to the
Secretary, with regard to that office.
Senator Bingaman. Well, as you know, we have a number of
very active water rights adjudications in New Mexico that
involve Indian water rights claims, and there are some active
negotiations going on with regard to some of those. I have
heard concerns by some of the negotiating parties that the
Department of the Interior has not taken an active role in
settlement discussions, and this leaves the parties with no
real guidance as to what will constitute an acceptable
settlement from the point of view of the administration.
If you are confirmed by the Senate, you obviously will
continue to have a role with respect to these negotiations.
Just from my own perspective, there is a great benefit in
trying to get some of these cases settled, particularly those
that have been pending for several decades. I would hope that
in your new role, after confirmation, you would take an active
part in trying to move negotiations along. I think the
Solicitor could do a great deal to accelerate this process if
that were a priority.
Ms. Wooldridge. I think that I can certainly say that we
will do everything to try to move them along appropriately. I
think you referenced the Aamodt settlement and we are at a
point where we need to analyze the cost share for the Federal
Government. That is always a difficult problem. It takes some
time getting through our process. But we would be happy to work
expeditiously on that.
Senator Bingaman. That would be very helpful.
One other question. We had an issue come up with regard to
a bill that I had introduced and Senator Domenici cosponsored
on the Ojito Wilderness just the other day. What the issue
really came down to--as I understood the Department's
position--was that the administration would not support that
legislation. The BLM would not support it unless we were to go
and define in some detail the specific parameters of the trust
duties that the Government would owe or the Secretary would owe
to the tribe in the specific legislation.
Now, this was a break from the way I had understood it was
always done before. I know there is a great deal of case law
laying out what the trust duties of the Secretary are.
Do you think that it is necessary for us to be legislating
specifically what those trust duties are with regard to each
piece of land that might be involved with transfer to an Indian
tribe?
Ms. Wooldridge. I think this question is a very important
one both for Congress and for the Department. As you know, we
have been trying to get a grip on that, both in the Cobell case
and in other matters. We have been recently twice before the
Supreme Court on this question.
To answer that specifically would probably be most improper
for me since I am not aware of the legislation or what our
position was on that legislation. But Congress does have
plenary authority over Indian matters, and I think it is
certainly easier as the executive to understand our precise
duties, as we go in to try to manage something, than it is to
have that be unclear. Beyond that, I think I should not speak
because I am not quite sure that I have a full understanding of
it.
Senator Bingaman. Well, this is something I think we will
probably revisit after your confirmation because it is a major
change from the policy that has been in place in the 21 years I
have been here in this committee. If we are to write that into
each piece of legislation, that would be a substantial change
in what is required.
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, I would look forward to working with
you and your staff on that.
Senator Bingaman. All right. Thank you very much. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Yes, sir.
I guess many of the issues we talk about are at least
partly policy issues and not entirely legal issues, but
nevertheless they are sort of intertwined. For instance, the
wolf delisting situation we are in now in Wyoming and Montana
and Idaho, which at least appears currently to be up in court.
The issue really is how do we get this animal delisted and get
it under the control of the State and be able to control the
numbers.
Do you have any feeling----
Ms. Wooldridge. No. My general feeling is, Senator, that we
all have the same purpose in mind, which is to ensure that the
communities are protected, that the wolf continues on its
recovery, and that local communities have some ability to try
to be a part of that management. So I think good will and more
work will get us there. Hopefully we can resolve this without
much litigation.
Senator Thomas. Well, I hope so. The message we get from
the Department, of course, is that they are unwilling to put
together a plan that has the predator aspect to it because they
would fail in court to be able to sustain that position. Is
that your point of view?
Ms. Wooldridge. I am sorry. Now you have gone beyond my
level of competence. It has not been one that I have had any
decisionmaking authority on.
Senator Thomas. Well, see if you can wolf up on it a
little.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Wooldridge. I will wolf up on that. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Also, of course, the same thing in terms of
permitting for oil and gas production and so on ends up often
in the courts with the environmentalists moving forward. We are
having some of that with the coal methane in the Powder River
basin. Again, we need to resolve these things as much as we can
and move forward. It just seems like every difficult issue ends
up, well, we are going to sue or we are in court, and then
nothing happens. It is just really frustrating.
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, I understand that, Senator. We would
be happy with less litigation as well.
Senator Thomas. Or more timely. If they are going to have
litigation, let us get on with it so we can get some decisions
made.
One of the difficulties in agencies, I suppose, is the
decisions that are often made at the high levels. It takes a
while to get them on the ground and get things happening.
We have another, Martin's Cove, a lease out there that has
been very controversial. We finally decided to do a lease, but
it has been a long time and the lease still is not done.
Again, I recognize I am talking more about issues than the
legal aspect of it, but you all are part of that. I do not know
about the land part of it. I am on the Indian Affairs Committee
and land trust things, the division, multiple ownership of
those lands and so on. It has been going on now for how long?
Ms. Wooldridge. Well, the fractionation is an enormous
problem that I know a lot of people have been trying to work on
for a long time.
Senator Thomas. We do not seem to be making much progress.
At least it is hard to determine that that is the case.
Well, there are a lot of issues that you will have to deal
with, of course, and I think I am very impressed with your
background here. I was telling someone you are from Denver, but
you are not from Denver.
Ms. Wooldridge. No, I am not.
Senator Thomas. From California.
Ms. Wooldridge. I was born in Riverside, California and
raised in the northern part of California.
Senator Thomas. How long have you been with the Secretary?
Ms. Wooldridge. I have been with her since January 31, the
day she was sworn in.
Senator Thomas. Oh, I see. As what? Chief of staff?
Ms. Wooldridge. As the Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor.
I got to know her when I was in the California Attorney
General's office and she was the Attorney General of Colorado.
Senator Thomas. So we have got lots of legal stuff going on
there in the office.
Ms. Wooldridge. That is right.
Senator Thomas. Well, I am sure that the chairman and
others who were not able to be here may have some questions for
you and we will, of course, leave the record open. Should you
get some written questions, we hope you will promptly respond
to those.
Ms. Wooldridge. I absolutely will, Senator. Thank you for
holding this hearing for me today.
Senator Thomas. We will seek to move as quickly as we can
to get you in position.
Ms. Wooldridge. All right. Thank you so much.
Senator Thomas. Thank you for being here.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:57 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following letter was received for the record:]
Association of California Water Agencies,
Sacramento, CA, March 8, 2004.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chair, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman: The Association
of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to support the
President's nomination of Sue Ellen Wooldridge to serve as Solicitor
for the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Over the past three years, Ms. Wooldridge has played a critical
role inside Secretary Norton's office in guiding the Department. She
has built a distinguished record of public and private service in the
resources field. With a strong working knowledge of the Congressional
and stakeholder processes that guide the Department, she is a superb
candidate for work in the Solicitor's office.
Our association is confident that Ms. Wooldridge can work
successfully with a wide variety of interests to create policies that
will address the water, environmental, and other resource issues facing
California and the West. We pledge to work with her, the rest of the
Bush Administration and Congress should she be confirmed.
We respectfully request your approval of this nomination.
Sincerely,
David L. Reynolds,
Director of Federal Affairs.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC, March 18, 2004.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed you will find my responses to written
questions following my confirmation hearing held on March 11, 2004.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Sue Ellen Wooldridge,
Solicitor-Designate.
[Enclosure.]
Question From Senator Domenici
Question. The Endangered Species Workgroup in the Middle Rio Grande
has been engaged in developing a recovery program for the silvery
minnow and other endangered species for many years. While I agree that
integrated and jointly agreed to efforts help to limit litigation and
have the promise of more cohesive, long-term solutions, I have been
concerned with the pace of activity of this group. Consequently, I have
created an ``executive committee'' to oversee the decision processes
and hopefully focus the group's efforts. The US Bureau of Reclamation
has also placed an experienced and responsive leader in the district to
avoid a situation similar to what happened in the Klamath--a situation
you know very well. We need action from this workgroup and we need it
sooner rather than later.
Can you provide me assurance that you will do whatever you can to
help this new executive committee and the workgroup live up to its
mission?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work in the Department of the
Interior to ensure appropriate leadership in this area.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Are there any Solicitor's Opinions that you think need
to be revisited? What Solicitor's Opinions do you expect to review
during the remainder of FY04 and FY05? Please provide a list. What
criteria will you use in determining whether an opinion should be
modified, withdrawn, or reversed?
Answer. I have no plans at this time to review any Solicitor's
Opinions. If legal matters arise that may necessitate my review of
previous Solicitors' Opinions, I will evaluate such matters on a case-
by-case basis.
Question 2. Will you consult with an affected Indian Tribe before
modifying or withdrawing a Solicitor's Opinion that affects that Tribe?
Answer. When appropriate, I will consult with an Indian Tribe
before modifying or withdrawing a Solicitor's Opinion that directly
affects that Tribe.
Question 3. Will you consult with an affected Indian Tribe before
settling litigation that affects that Tribe?
Answer. When appropriate, I will consult with an Indian Tribe
before settling litigation that directly affects that Tribe.
Question 4. Please describe for the Committee your views regarding
the role of the Solicitor within the Department?
Answer. I view the role of the Solicitor as being the chief legal
officer of the Department. In that capacity, the Solicitor serves as
the principal legal adviser to the Secretary and is responsible for all
legal work in the Department, except that delegated to the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, the Inspector General, the Legislative Counsel,
and the Justices of American Samoa.
Questions From Senator Wyden
FOIA REQUESTS
Question 1. For several years now, various bureaus at Interior have
claimed they can ignore requests for information from Senators on this
Committee, unless requested by the Chairman. Interior treats
information requests from other Senators on the Committee as if the
Senators' requests were made under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). The legislative history for FOIA offers no justification for
withholding information from Congress; controlling court decisions have
ruled that all members of Congress have constitutionally recognized
rights to seek information from executive branch agencies that they
need to carry out the responsibilities of legislation and oversight.
Ms. Wooldridge, if you're confirmed as the Interior Solicitor, will
you follow the law or Interior policy when it comes to responding to
information requests from me?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Department's existing
policies and consult with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure
that the Department's procedures concerning document requests from
Members of Congress comply with the law and applicable DOJ guidelines.
CHEMAWA INDIAN SCHOOL
Question 2. Indian Health Services issued reports to the Bureau of
Indian Affair on December 5, 2002, October 16, 2001, and September 9,
2000 indicating that the practices regarding detention of students in
holding cells located on the Chemawa Indian School Campus were unsafe.
These reports clearly state that incarcerating intoxicated students
without properly trained healthcare professionals to evaluate and
monitor them places these students in danger. Many of the students on
the Chemawa campus suffer from substance abuse problems and mental
health issues. Despite the demonstrated need there is no after hours
access to this type of care.
Would the Department of the Interior be better able to meet its
obligations to the students at the Chemawa Indian School if an
infirmary, staffed twenty-four hours a day by registered nurses with
experience in drug and alcohol abuse, was established on the campus?
Answer. I have not been involved in this matter in my current
capacity. However, it is my understanding that the Department's Office
of the Inspector General is currently investigating this matter.
Furthermore, I am advised that the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs is also looking into the policies of all offreservation
boarding schools to better meet the needs of Indian students. These
investigations may result in management practice or staffing changes to
address this problem.
J. STEVEN GRILES INVESTIGATION
Question 3. Ms. Wooldridge, allegations have been raised regarding
ethical violations by Interior Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles. You
may also be aware, that I and other Senators have asked the Interior
Department inspector general to investigate these allegations. It
appears from documents released by the Interior Department that you
were advising Mr. Griles on his ethics agreements and severance payment
agreements with his former firm, National Environmental Strategies.
Given that Mr. Griles and other top-level DOI officials have had
ethical problems and given that the solicitor's office now oversees the
Interior Department Ethics office, how will you ensure that all ethics
agreements and recusal agreements are being enforced?
Answer. In 2001, the Department's Ethics Office was primarily a
policy office, reporting to the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget (ASPMB). At that time, ethics advice was given in
a bifurcated manner, with the ethics office providing policy advice and
the Solicitor's Office, Division of General Law, providing legal
advice. The Inspector General previously performed a management
analysis and suggested that ethics advice is primarily a legal function
and, therefore, recommended that the office be housed within the Office
of the Solicitor. Subsequently, the Designated Agency Ethics Official
(DAEO), in consultation with the Inspector General, the Office of
Government Ethics, and the Office of the Secretary, performed an
organizational study to determine whether realignment of the ethics
function was appropriate. Ultimately, the Secretary decided that the
ethics function should be moved from ASPMB to the Office of the
Solicitor. While a Secretary's Order memorializing this change was
issued in August 2003, the management improvements identified in the
study and discussed more specifically below were already underway.
Over the past two years the Department has put into place and
continues to refine a number of significant internal controls designed
to ensure that ethics and recusal agreements are being enforced. For
instance, with regard to Deputy Secretary Griles, some of the changes
we have instituted include: the DAEO and Deputy DAEO have access to his
calendar, the person who performs his formal screening functions has
been changed, all persons who perform those functions for the Deputy
Secretary have been trained in their duties, and there is a weekly
meeting with, among others, the DAEO, the Deputy Chief of Staff and the
Deputy Secretary's scheduling personnel to analyze upcoming meetings
and events on his calendar.
Additionally, the DAEO has succeeded in raising employees'
awareness of the need to consult with the ethics office on a regular
basis to address questions of concern. As a result, the Department's
ethics office is now viewed as a critical resource in providing
guidance, advice, and formulating policy.
In furtherance of its efforts to raise the profile and awareness of
its many functions, the Ethics Office prepared and delivered
specialized training for all senior political employees on the use of
recusals, screening protocols, and management controls related to
ethics matters. The DAEO regularly meets with all Presidential
appointees to increase the Ethics Office's visibility and to underscore
the need for early warning and advice mechanisms related to ethics and
recusal agreements. The DAEO ensures that all support staff reporting
to Presidential appointees receive ethics training with particular
attention paid to topics of common concern. Additionally, the DAEO
established regular weekly meetings with the Chief of Staff, Deputy
Chief of Staff, Associate Solicitor for General Law, and Counselor to
the Secretary to discuss and address current ethics issues pending in
the Department.
In October 2003, the then-Director of the Office of Government
Ethics (OGE) wrote to the DAEO, ``We recognize the significant efforts
that you and others at Interior have made to restructure your ethics
program in a way that will strengthen the ethics program for all
employees at the Department. We believe that the new program structure,
including the placement of the DAEO within the Office of the Solicitor,
is a sound development for your Department and will provide the
capacity to meet the challenges of running a major Departmental ethics
program in the 21st century.''
I am aware of the report issued on March 16, 2004, by the
Department's Inspector General in connection with certain ethics
matters surrounding Mr. Griles' activities as Deputy Secretary. I am
further aware that the Inspector General's report identifies certain
deficiencies within the Department's Ethics Office and makes
recommendations to the Secretary to address those deficiencies.
Finally, I am aware that the OGE concurs with the Inspector General's
recommendations in a letter dated March 12, 2004. The OGE letter
indicates that some reforms have been made already, such as
transferring the Ethics Office to the Office of the Solicitor.
If confirmed, I will work to pursue improvements in the
Department's ethics program in light of the Inspector General's
recommendations. I will support the efforts of the Ethics Office to
provide sound training, guidance and advice on ethics matters to all
employees of the Department. Furthermore, I will take the steps
necessary to ensure that ethics agreements and recusals are enforced.
PIPE CORROSION STANDARDS
Question 4. Last year, Congress requested a report from the Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR) asking for recommendations for a more definitive
corrosion standard regarding the most appropriate use of ductile iron
pipe and steel pipe for a particular application. That report was to be
delivered by March 1, 2004. It has now been rescheduled to be delivered
in December 2004.
Question 4a. Will the report in its final form answer the question
as to the relative effectiveness of the alternate coatings for steel
and ductile iron pipe?
Answer. I am advised that the report will evaluate the
effectiveness of coating options for steel and ductile iron pipe and
make recommendations accordingly.
Question 4b. Will the report provide guidelines as to the life
cycle cost benefits for the various coatings?
Answer. I am advised that the report will evaluate projected life
cycle costs of alternate coatings for steel and ductile iron pipe and
provide guidance on how best to incorporate this information into
Reclamation's pipeline construction contracts.
Question 5. There have been numerous reports issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency, American Water Works Association,
Water Industry Network, and the American Society of Civil Engineers
that have documented the decay of our nation's infrastructure. They all
report that $10 billion to $36 billion per year of federal money will
be required to maintain U.S. water systems.
Will this report undertake an independent assessment of the program
of corrosion of metallic pipes or will it be a compilation of industry
standards that have led to this situation?
Answer. I am advised that the report will evaluate industry
standards, national consensus standards, independent engineering
studies, and performance data to develop updated guidance regarding
corrosion protection of Reclamation pipelines-which incorporate steel
or ductile iron pipe.
Question 6. The oil and gas industry has been mandated to provide
protection of metallic pipes for decades. Does the BOR intend to
consult experts from the oil and gas industry as it prepares its
recommendations for this report?
Answer. I have been informed that Reclamation has reviewed the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety data related
to this issue and will evaluate other national consensus standards
related to oil and gas pipelines. We will consider these evaluations as
we develop our report on this issue.
Question 7. Will there be participation of interested parties such
as the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, utilities, and
owners as the BOR compiles information for its report?
Answer. I am advised that we are collecting and reviewing publicly
available information on this issue from a wide variety of sources. We
are contacting other owners and utilities to evaluate their experiences
with these products. I am further advised that we have reviewed the
National Association of Corrosion Engineers material on this issue. We
have also employed the services of private sector corrosion engineers
and the national Institute of Standards and Technology to assist in our
analyses. Our final report will consider input from all of these
sources and develop recommendations accordingly.