U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

56–731 u WASHINGTON : 1999

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND

THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 13, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–21

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held April 13, 2000 ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 2

Vento, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 3

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 4

Statement of Witnesses:

Frampton, George T., Jr., Acting Chairman, Council on Environmental

Quality, Washington, DC ............................................................................. 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

(1)

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen

[acting chairman of the Committee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.

I am conducting this meeting at the request of Chairman Young

today. We are meeting today for general oversight of the Council

of Environmental Quality and the Office of Environmental Quality,

which serves as staff for the Council.

At the same time, this hearing gives us a chance to meet and

greet the Acting Chair of CEQ, George Frampton, who we had an

experience with before. I am grateful he could be with us. I understand you are going before a Senate group this week, and more

power to you on whatever happens. Mr. Frampton comes to this

post by way of the Wilderness Society and the Department of Interior, in having provided legal assistance to the Vice President in

connection with certain political campaign finance problems.

My concern is how the CEQ is used. It should not be a political

operation used for partisan political purposes. It should be an office

of government that helps people, and ensures that all Federal

agencies with environmental responsibilities work cooperatively

and toward the same goals. However, these goals should be those

of the American people, not one of any political party or candidate.

Last year we made it quite clear to Katie McGinty, your predecessor, that CEQ and its Chair and this administration are not

above the law. Over the last several years, we have repeatedly seen

the Clinton/Gore Administration abuse and evade the rule of law,

and ignore the will of Congress. For example, in the testimony you

submitted today for this hearing, you talk about creating environmental policy. I am here to tell you that it is not the place of CEQ,

or this administration, to create the policy; the Constitution grants

that to the Congress, the legislative branch. The executive branch

executes and administers the laws we craft. I think the administration needs to be reminded from time to time of this fact.

2

Finally, I want to say that the Council on Environmental Quality

needs an incredibly balanced Chair. I know that you will be going

through the confirmation process over the next several weeks, and

I am sure that the other body will talk to you about that.

I look forward to our dialogue today. I will now turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, for any statement that he may have; the

gentleman from California.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and

Chairman Young for holding this hearing.

I would like to give a very warm welcome to George Frampton,

and wish him well in the confirmation hearings. I think he has

been a very, very important person in this administration, mainly

trying to resolve environmental conflicts. He very often has been

called to the scene when things have gone wrong and had a great

opportunity to go off the track, and was able to sit down with the

parties and put things on track. In many instances, local communities, economic interests, and others, have a great deal at stake

in making sure that these issues get resolved. I think we have

watched his involvement in some of the more complex issues, as in

CALFED in California, where we are trying to reform and modernize, and properly allocate the future of our California water system, to the Everglades. Just a few short years ago, we were told

we were going to lose the Everglades, and almost with each passing

month we get more optimistic about the opportunities to save that

system, and to protect that system, and to do it in conjunction with

the urban water users, with the farmers inside of the Everglades,

with the sugar growers who are to the north of the Everglades, and

the people who are concerned with the health of the marine resources.

So, he brings an incredible portfolio to this position and he has,

time and again, demonstrated that as the Acting Director.

We welcome you, George, very much. Again, thank you for holding this hearing.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Chairman Young, do you have an opening statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. YOUNG. It wouldn’t be quite as flowery as Mr. Miller’s was,

I would be sure of that one. But, I do welcome the witness; I welcome all our witnesses, and we will be looking forward to what he

has to say about a quasi-agency that exerts a tremendous amount

of influence upon other agencies within this administration.

I think your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, was very close to

the fact, that it is the Congress’ role to set policy and direction, and

pass laws, to submit those, and when laws are not followed, it becomes very much a concern of my own. So, I look forward to the

gentleman’s testimony today.

Mr. HANSEN. Do any other members have an opening statement?

Mr. Vento?

3

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would welcome our friend and

former Assistant Secretary, and wish him well in his hearing next

week in the Senate with regard to confirmation. I am sure he will

make an excellent Chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality.

With regard to today’s hearing, NEPA, I think, has attained a lot

of its objectives. I think that, so often, when certain laws have been

passed, such as NEPA or the Endangered Species Act, very often

there is, I think, almost an over-reliance on individual laws to, in

fact, remedy; that is, that they become overloaded with different

issues that need to be resolved. But, I think in the Council on Environmental Quality, you have, as you do with several other entities

like the Council on Historic Preservation, an ability to try and reconcile some of these matters between the agencies and departments within the administration, and with the public.

But, I think the NEPA issue under discussion has been, obviously, a very important measure to provide us with some guideposts and guidance with regard to our environment, and with stating the overall objectives of the National Government, and the role

that it has in terms of protecting the environment, and providing

for a predictable and stable path in terms of development, and a

framework for developing information and knowledge and public

input. So, I think it is a good law. It probably could use some

changes and modifications, but I think it is one that we have come

to rely upon as being the foundation, really, of our modern-day

work in terms of analysis.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

But I don’t know if this hearing is going to be about whether or

not you set policy or we set policy, but I would say this: Very often

we write policy that is very difficult to carry out. We write policy

for the Department of Agriculture, and the EPA, and for the Department of Interior, and all the rest of it. And all too often, what

we have seen is that those agencies are at war with one another,

while local communities and others suffer and wait around for

them to come together and reconcile their differences.

CEQ, I think, has been a very important force in, I guess I would

say, you can call it establishing policy, and I properly say so. I have

watched it with respect to California water resources, where they

have held this process together between a dozen State agencies,

and Federal agencies, and all of the local stakeholders, and all of

the business organizations, and everyone else. The same is true in

the Everglades. I mean, somebody had to go and get the Corps of

Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, and Fish and Wildlife,

and Marine Resource people all together, the Park Service, to come

together and put together a policy, along with all the local people,

for cleaning up and protecting the Everglades, so that, hopefully,

we won’t lose that resource.

If there is a problem with establishing that kind of policy, then

you have to also understand that if they stood by and did nothing,

and everything went to hell, you had better not blame them. So,

you have to either have it all one way or all the other, if that is

4

what you are going to object to. Maybe I am missing what you are

saying about establishing policy. I don’t know that anybody at CEQ

has ever suggested that we don’t make the policy around here, but

we also know it is a hell of a lot more difficult to carry out the policy than it is to make it.

Mr. HANSEN. Are there any further statements from any of the

members?

[No response.]

If not, Mr. Frampton, we ask you to stand, please, and raise your

right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Frampton, we turn the time to you,

and appreciate you being with us today.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON JR., ACTING CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young, Mr.

Miller, members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be back in

front of this Committee again, and I hope to initiate a new dialogue

between this Committee and CEQ on issues that are of mutual concern to both of us.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a brief written statement that I would

like to submit for the record, which I prepared pursuant to the

direction——

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.

Mr. FRAMPTON. [continuing] in a letter which we received last

Wednesday, which asked me to state something about my background and priorities for CEQ. I have attempted to prepare myself

as best I could, over the last few days, for questions that I thought

that members of the Committee might have for me; but, since the

scope of the hearing is pretty broad, I hope you will indulge me,

if there are issues that I am not adequately prepared on, the opportunity to get back to you, in writing or in some other fashion, on

some of the questions you may have.

Rather than summarize my opening statement, I thought I would

just say, very briefly, what I perceive to be probably the two greatest challenges for CEQ, looking forward. The first has to do with

coordinating not only the work of Federal agencies, but building

partnerships between Federal agencies and State and local governments, and other stakeholders. And the second has to do with the

process with which we make important environmental decisions.

Almost all the major issues and problems that I worked on at the

Interior Department involved not only two or three or four Federal

departments or agencies, as Mr. Miller noted, but required partnerships with State and local governments, with private landowners,

with non-profits, and with many other stakeholders. That was certainly true of the Everglades restoration program, which involved

nine Federal agencies, three State agencies, the sugar industry,

counties, cities, and many other parties. It was true, Mr. Chairman, as you know, of the Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council,

which was a joint venture of the State and Federal Governments.

It was true of the work that we did to try to make the Endangered

Species Act work better, using habitat conservation plans in southVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:03 Oct 10, 2000 Jkt 066966 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56731 pfrm02 PsN: 56731
5

ern California, and other parts of the country, not just the Federal

agencies, but State and local governments as well.

In the few months that I have been in this position as Acting

Chair of CEQ, I have found, even more than I did at Interior, that

is what governors want; that is what county executives want; that

is what mayors want; that is what the groups that represent regulated industries want. They want the Federal family to speak with

one voice. They want the Federal Government to be together. And

they want the Federal agencies to join in partnerships with State

and local governments. So, I think that is really one of the two

great challenges for CEQ, is to try to promote those kinds of partnerships.

Mr. Chairman, in my opening statement I did not intend to say,

and I don’t believe that I did say, that I think that CEQ should

create government policy. What I actually said in the statement

was that we are trying to foster partnerships between those who

do have the authority to create environmental policy and those who

are affected by environmental policy. It seems to me that is becoming an increasingly important part of what CEQ is about, to try to

forge partnerships. Because that’s the only way to really get very

much done these days.

The second challenge that I think CEQ faces is to truly realize

the original objectives of the National Environmental Policy Act,

which were, first, to ensure that Federal agency decisions were

made with balance; that individual agency biases, or agency programs, were remediated with other objectives, other agency programs, and that environmental objectives are weighed and balanced with economic and social imperatives, so decisions are made

with balance.

And, second, the decisions are made, in large part, through the

process of preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Decisions are made based on good information, and with public participation. Basically, the National Environmental Policy Act is an attempt to democratize our environmental decisionmaking, to encourage Federal agencies to make decisions based on good information and public participation.

So, those, it seems to me, are the real challenges that CEQ faces.

We are not going to solve or meet those challenges overnight, but

to try to build partnerships, and to try to make sure that Federal

decisions are made in a democratic fashion with public participation, based on good information, those are the two lodestars that

I think CEQ should be working towards.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to stop and

happy to take any questions that members of the Committee may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frampton may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Frampton. We appreciate your

comments. I will recognize members for five minutes each. We will

start with the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Frampton, I have heard some rumors that the

Tongass Land Management Plan, TLMP, which just went final in

May of 1997, is about to be changed again very soon. I have also

heard that you, and others at the CEQ, are involved in changing

6

it; that the change will, again, decrease the amount of timber allowed to be harvested this time by one-third of the amount that

was specifically set in the TLMP process. My question is: Are you,

or anyone in CEQ, involved in modifying, or supporting modification, of the Tongass plan?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Mr. Chairman, the answer to that, to the best of

my knowledge, is no. I certainly am not, and very intentionally so.

The final Tongass Land Management Plan had been subject, as you

know, to many appeals. It is my understanding that those appeals

are going to be resolved, and a final plan, or resolution of the appeals, published in the next day or two. But, I have stayed, as an

administrative appeal in the Department of Agriculture, I have

very consciously stayed away, both from the process and any

knowledge of what the final shape of the plan in going to be, or

any details of the plan. In fact, over the last few weeks it has

seemed to me that there are a lot of people on the streets in Alaska

and Washington that seem to know a lot about this. I am not one

of them. I have not been briefed on the final decision, if it has been

made, and I have not participated in it.

The question, again, following up, is that the Tongass plan was

done underneath NEPA and the National Forest Management Act;

is that correct?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, NEPA certainly applies to the planning

process, but the appeals that have been taken——

Mr. YOUNG. Those two agencies are the ones that drew this plan

up?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, the U.S. Forest Service is responsible——

Mr. YOUNG. And under NEPA.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Under the Forest Management Act.

Mr. YOUNG. Now, here is what I am getting into: Can you assure

me or the Committee today that no significant amendment of the

Tongass plan will occur without the public involvement required by

NEPA?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Mr. Chairman, we have had years and years of

public involvement with the NEPA process and plan, and final appeals are pursuant to law.

Mr. YOUNG. Don’t dance around me now. Under NEPA, there has

to be public involvement. There has been public involvement, and

the plan has been issued. Now, I had just heard today that, on behalf of CEQ, that there is a move afoot to change the plan without

any public involvement.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, the National Forest Management Act—you are testing my knowledge of the Act—provides

for administrative appeals to the Chief of the Forest Service. Those

appeals have been taken, and my understanding is that the Agriculture Department is about to resolve those appeals pursuant to

the National Management Act’s processes.

Mr. YOUNG. But you said in your statement that the purpose of

your agency is to work out problems. Now, if the Forest Service decides to settle the TLMP appeals by amending the plan, without

any public input, don’t you think that would be breaking the intent

of NEPA?

7

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I don’t think that it would be appropriate

for CEQ to intervene in that quasi-administrative appeals process

within the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. YOUNG. All right, so you——

Mr. FRAMPTON. I don’t think NEPA is intended to apply to that

process.

Mr. YOUNG. You can assure me now that CEQ, none of the people in your group, or yourself, have been involved in advising the

Forest Service to amend or accept amendments that change the

TLMP proposal?

Mr. FRAMPTON. As far as I know, no one at CEQ has been involved in that. And I can assure you that I, personally, have not

been involved in any way in that appeal, or in advising anybody

at the Forest Service about the substance, or direction, or resolution of that appeal, or any of the issues in the appeal. I have stayed

way away from that.

Mr. YOUNG. Again, you are under oath, and I can say in your

knowledge, but it is under your watch; and this is very dear to my

southeast community. You have destroyed this community in this

administration. We have no timber industry left. Mr. Miller helped

do that, and he said he wouldn’t let it happen. But it is dead. Now

they are coming down with the recommendation of a very minimal

cut, and if there has been a recommendation made by someone in

your shop to the Forest Service to accept the appeal and cut down

by one-third what the remaining little amount that was going to

be offered, without public input, or the effect upon the economy and

the environment, I think it would be a great disservice to yourself,

this administration, and the whole process. It means that you are

not following—the process is not being followed.

Now, this may be all rumors. But, most of my rumors are pretty

correct when it comes to these issue. So, I am hoping that everything you have told me here today is on the up-and-up, because we

will follow this paper trail. And we do have a confirmation hearing

coming up; and if you think that I don’t have that hearing privilege, my Senators do, but they will be quite interested, because

they are quite interested in this issue.

My time has run out, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. At the risk of dipping my toe in a——

Mr. YOUNG. I would suggest you don’t do it.

Mr. MILLER. I just want to ask a technical question, just so we

are clear because I am a little bit confused. My understanding is,

on the Tongass, they went through a public process; they came out

with a plan, and the plan is on appeal to the Chief, right? And he

will make a decision to the Secretary, and that will be that, right?

And that can be litigated if somebody—but the public process was

at the front end, when all of this was——

Mr. YOUNG. What I am looking for, Mr. Miller, is, if I find out

the CEQ or any staff members are involved in this issue, recommending to the Chief that they decrease the original amount of

timber, that goes back to setting policy, and I am saying that is incorrect, because we are supposed to go through NEPA and the Forest Service Management Group, and that is what has cost us $18

million.

8

Mr. MILLER. Excuse me. I was misunderstanding. I thought it

was suggesting that somehow the front-end public process was not

done.

Mr. YOUNG. No, no, no.

Mr. MILLER. Okay.

Mr. YOUNG. But the rear end, which we will be looking at, if they

decrease the amount of timber, we don’t have anything left. We

have millions of acres of trees and we don’t have enough to take

and even cut toothpicks anymore.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, and let me just ask a couple of questions. I guess, because I come at this from a different direction, my

experience in a number of issues has been that the CEQ has been

rather helpful in holding together large, complex problems and the

resolution of those problems. You mentioned getting the Federal

Government to speak with one voice here, and that’s what local entities want. And I think that’s clear.

We went through, and you were helpful, as I said, on holding the

CALFED process together. But, it seems to me that these are really the processes by which we have the best chance to succeed. On

some of these issues we either go timber sale by timber sale in the

Sierras, and litigate everything, and end up doing nothing for a

decade, or we can try to resolve it on a much larger scale with respect to the forest, and have a policy that everybody knows they

can live by and work within, and adjust their activities accordingly.

And it seems to me, that’s true in the Everglades, the Headwaters;

we could have litigated every piece of timber in the Headwaters,

or we could have worked out a problem there that—for the moment

I’m not a great champion at that one, but it seems to me that it

may very well work, with respect to both the environmental community, the local communities, the business that was involved in

the State legislature, and the State Office of Forestry seeming to

go along with that resolution.

If anything, I would think that we would want to try to improve

the status of CEQ to help bring these things to closure, and to get

the Federal Government to speak with one voice, but how do you

do that? You are operating on a pretty small budget compared to

the people you are supposed to be bringing into the room to get to

talk and to work these things out. How are you going to be able

to continue to do that? I mean, some of these are really large,

statewide problems. There is no question about——

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, Mr. Miller, we have got to work harder. I

appreciate your perception of this. I think that it is certainly the

perception as well, for example, of the Western Governors. When

I went out the first week I was in this job, to the Western Governors’ Association meeting, where I have been almost every year

in November in Phoenix, a lot of the western governors, Democrats

and Republicans, made the point that CEQ is really the only place

they can come to to make sure that some of these major interagency projects are on track. And they were surprised that CEQ

has so few resources, so few people.

This is an agency that now has half as many staff, or 60 percent

as many staff, as it did at the end of the Bush Administration. But

I think the key is, it is a delicate balance. We are not trying to be

environmental czars; we can’t do that. We are not trying to direct

9

programs. We are trying to foster cooperative partnerships and relationships between, and help, people who have the lead responsibility in different Federal agencies, work together, and cajole them,

or encourage them, or help them work with State and local governments. But it is very often a process of herding cats. But that is

all we can do; we do our best, under the existing structure of laws

and statutes. We are a facilitator and a catalyzer, not a horse driver or a czar.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. PETERSON. Good afternoon and welcome. I come from the

East, Pennsylvania. But, as I was reviewing the role you will play

in your new position—I am fairly new in Congress—but, there were

many who felt your predecessor, instead of playing the role of

bringing people together with an agenda, that was the perception—

how can you assure us that you won’t play that role that way?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Congressman, I think it is possible to lead and

to bring people together. I guess all I can say to you is that, I spent

four years at the Department of Interior as an Assistant Secretary.

I pretty much put together and led the Everglades restoration effort, restoring Prince William Sound, did a lot of work on CALFED,

the Northwest Forest Plan, trying to really change the way the Endangered Species Act is administered, so that it becomes a tool that

State and local governments can use, that private landowners can

use to gain some certainty, as well as some habitat protection. I

think the things that I did there involve both some leadership and

some consensus, and that is basically what I have to go on.

I am not saying, ‘‘Trust me.’’ I am saying, ‘‘Look at what I did

for four years,’’ and that is what I hope to do at CEQ. And I think

that is what works; that is what makes for success.

Mr. PETERSON. Well, I know, speaking about my own career, I

was in local government for a number of years. I was a businessman for the bulk of my life, but I was in local government for eight

years, and when I became chairman of a local government, I

changed how I operated. I became a listener. I made everybody contribute. I made them function a lot more than some of them wanted to function, and I took a lower role than when I was challenging

the current leadership, before I became the chairman.

Not everybody gave that perspective, but I think the design of

this organization can be very helpful in bringing people together in

this country. But, if the people perceive that those who are running

it are running an agenda, it will have the opposite effect. And I

think, correct or incorrect, fair or unfair, your predecessor had the

perception of driving the train.

An issue I will switch to is the global climate issue. Would you

share with us a little bit of your thoughts about that; what your

role is in the global climate issue?

Mr. FRAMPTON. You know, I think that it has been a very consistent hallmark of this administration’s environmental policy overall to try to show that we can combine strong environmental protection with good economics. I would just say to you that the record

of the last six years is a pretty good record on that, proving that

it can be done. Maybe we have gotten lucky in some aspects, but

those two things can work together.

10

I think the climate change policy that the administration has put

forward is very consistent with that. The President has basically

said, look, this is a terribly important issue for our future. We are

operating under a treaty that has been submitted to the Senate,

and ratified unanimously, by the Bush Administration, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which obligates us to take

some measures to try to stabilize and reduce greenhouse gases.

While we have signed the Kyoto Protocol, the President has committed to a five-year plan of trying to do the things that the Framework Convention calls for, basically, voluntarily—trying to encourage through incentives, through economic investments, encourage

the private sector to make the kind of investments that will both

make companies more efficient and clean up the air, and reduce

greenhouse gases. So, our climate change technology initiatives,

trying to fund renewables and efficiency, proposals for tax credits,

this year a proposal for a clean air fund that would help State and

local governments, help small businesses invest in new technology,

those are the principal elements of the program that is designed to

see whether it is possible to facilitate the private sector both becoming more efficient and making progress on greenhouse gas reduction. That is the current framework of the administration’s position.

Mr. PETERSON. Bringing that back to the timber issue, there are

recent studies that show that in the Northeast, where we have continued to cut timber, and have a regenerating, younger forest, that

the greenhouse gasses are less when they leave the forest to the

Northeast and hit the ocean, than they were when they came into

the Northeast from the West. So, a young, growing, vibrant forest

is a whole lot better for clean air than an old dying forest, which

is the goal of many who want all of our forests preserved, I guess

to look at. I would like to have you react to that proposal, that a

young, growing forest that is cut and pruned properly is good for

clean air much more than it has been given credit for.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I am glad you asked me that question because it gives me an opportunity to make a pitch. This administration has really stuck its neck out in trying to promote the concept

that sinks, forests, and better farmland practices can make a major

contribution to the global warming problem, the climate change

problem. We are sponsoring workshops and seminars, and trying to

promote the international science that will show that forest enhancement, and different kinds of tillage practices, will actually

capture carbon, and will help us meet our overall goals of greenhouse gas reduction.

But, I have to tell you that, the science on this needs a lot of

work. If we are going to sell our international partners on how important it is to use sinks in this country and elsewhere—and American agriculture can benefit tremendously from this—we need more

money for scientific research to undergird that point of view. But

the administration has been very aggressive——

Mr. HANSEN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. PETERSON. Can I just say one thing? If the money was earmarked for that, I don’t think you would have much argument. I

mean, I think a lot of the money that has been asked for, it has

been very nebulous on what it is going to be used for. There is a

11

lot of suspicion, and I think if you had money earmarked for that

key issue, I think there would be a lot of support here.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you. We do, in fact.

Mr. HANSEN. I am trying to take people in the order in which

they arrive, and I am not sure I have got it all straight, but the

next one would be the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento, and

he would be followed by the gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs.

Chenoweth. Mr. Vento.

Mr. VENTO. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Frampton, Chairman Designate, I think one of the problems

here is that early in the administration there was an effort to try

and establish an Office of Environmental Council, as I recall. Of

course, the designated Chairman of the Council on Environmental

Quality was going to assume that position, Ms. McGinty at that

time. There was a reaction in Congress; that is, they wanted to preserve the Council on Environmental Quality—apparently, so they

could cut it by one-third in terms of funding—but, I mean, the

issue was that there was a concern that would draw this in too

close to the administration; it would lose some of the membership,

I guess. How many members are on the Council on Environmental

Quality?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, under the statute, there are three authorized members of the Council, but for the past 10 years or so, the

Congress has vested all the authority in a single member as a

Chair, and there are about 19 staff members.

Mr. VENTO. So, it is then down to about a third of what it was;

it was actually about 30-some members; now there are 23. But,

that has not stopped the effort to try and deal with things.

I was looking at the CEQ. Of course, one of the issues that they

involved themselves with in the early years was to, apparently,

provide technical assistance in terms of response to agencies, departments, States, and others, that would make a determination as

to what they needed to do under NEPA—had to do an EIS or an

EA—is that correct?

Mr. FRAMPTON. That is correct, and we still do.

Mr. VENTO. That is a considerable amount of work that goes on.

But it seems to me that as we follow this process—for instance, the

Forest Service, which seems to be the object of attention today, has

really learned pretty well how to do EIS’s and EA’s, and make

judgments. Obviously, if they make the wrong judgment and do an

EIS and they are supposed to do an EA, they may end up in court.

But, they are pretty much able to do those, and get a pretty good

turnaround time, in most of that activity, in my judgment, in terms

of what they are doing. Would you agree, Mr. Frampton?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I think the agencies are doing a much better job than they did a few years ago, but I think we have a ways

to go. We are constantly trying to reinvent NEPA. We are constantly trying to pare down——

Mr. VENTO. Very often, I think this law, especially the EIS’s and

NEPA, is in the position of delivering some information or some answers people do not want to hear. I can recall very well, Mr. Chairman and others, working on the old growth issue in the Pacific

Northwest, and we kept getting back answers, and the answers

were: ‘‘We have got to cut less.’’ Because that’s what the science,

12

that’s what the information dictated. And that ended up being very

contentious, I think, because of that; that was my judgment.

But, as I look at the list of projects that you have—I could go

through them; issues like environmental justice, the American Heritage Rivers Program, other programs—most of these, though, how

would you characterize it? They are really efforts to try to coordinate the various Federal agencies to get their act together between

the various departments and agencies, and, in a sense, you are proposing, in other words, that the Congress develop new laws, new

policies; that’s part of your role, too, isn’t it?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, certainly, statutorially, it is part of the

function of CEQ, assigned by Congress, to advise the President on

the development of environmental policy, and that would include

new statutes. I have to say, though, that in recent years, probably,

as Congressman Miller mentioned, the bulk of CEQ’s work has

been trying to figure out how to make existing laws work better,

and help the agencies that have responsibility for administering

those laws do that.

Mr. VENTO. One of those problems is, for instance, we are now

involved with this consultation with regard to the West Coast

salmon in Washington and Oregon. Do you want to comment about

your role in that, as compared, for instance, to the problems we

had with the old growth in the Pacific Northwest?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, there are two aspects to that. The coastal

salmon runs in Washington, Oregon, and California, most of which

have now been listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, are the subject of a proposal in the President’s Fiscal Year 2000 budget that was requested by four governors, actually. The governors of California, Oregon, Washington,

and Alaska wrote to the President, the Vice President, and asked

that the administration request from Congress a salmon restoration fund, that would go through the governors, to work on those

issues——

Mr. VENTO. And so, that is in the budget, isn’t it? It is $100 million?

Mr. FRAMPTON. It is $100 million proposal——

Mr. VENTO. When you spoke to the Western Governors, recently,

what did they ask you for? You made your presentation. What did

they tell you they need?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, the West Coast governors originally asked

for $200 million a year for six years, and they asked that CEQ actually coordinate that work, but that the money go through the

governors, so there would be a minimum of paperwork. But, this

is going to be a State and local program.

In fact, I think that you see the difference between the old

growth controversy and the coastal salmon issues by a press conference that was held a couple of weeks ago, by the governor of

Washington and Mr. Ruckelshous. The Federal officials were there,

the chief executive of Boeing, Microsoft, dozens of companies of the

Puget Sound area, joining with the King County executives, tricounty mayors, the governor, saying, ‘‘We all have to get together

and fulfill this job. We welcome funding from the Federal Government, and we welcome some Federal involvement, but we want to

do it ourselves, and we are going to do it.’’

13

Mr. VENTO. The point I was trying to make is that the Western

Governors, when you spoke to them, asked you to expand, actually,

the Council, is that right, on Environmental Quality?

Mr. FRAMPTON. That is correct.

Mr. VENTO. In other words, they want more of this, not less of

it?

Mr. FRAMPTON. That is correct.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth. She

will be followed by the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Frampton, I know that you agree that catastrophic events

such as windstorms and wildfires, or severe insect or disease

epidemics, often require the swift implementation of management

activities to further avert more environmental degradation. But,

unfortunately, our frustration—I know your frustration, too—is

that the legal and regulatory requirements or plain, old, bureaucratic red tape often prevent those activities from taking place in

a timely manner, or even at all.

But, there was a bright line drawn by Ms. McGinty last time,

where provisions exist in the law, but are rarely used, and she

used them. That allowed for an expedited process to occur; in particular, it is under alternative arrangements underneath us. Ms.

McGinty implemented that immediately following a severe windstorm in a national forest in Texas. They applied for, and received,

permission from the administration, to use the alternative arrangements for the removal of the blown-down trees, in order to reduce

the impacts of further insect infestations and degradation of the resource.

Apparently, Mr. Frampton, with the windstorm occurring in February of 1998, it only took four months for the process to work as

it had been envisioned originally by the Congress, and it was a remarkably admirable, effective program that she put into place.

I have drafted legislation that lists a number of forests that have

experienced catastrophic events, really, that are in similar magnitude to those in Texas. In fact, we heard in testimony before the

Forest Health Subcommittee that a lot of our national forests are

in a state of mere collapse. For example, in Idaho, in the Panhandle National Forest, 150,000 acres are experiencing a real disastrous outbreak of the Douglas fir bark beetle, and to contain this

infestation on Federal land, so it won’t spread to State and private

lands, and to prevent further catastrophic fires, are you willing to

work with the Forest Service, especially where there are regional

catastrophic conditions, to see the alternative arrangements implemented?

I do want to say that there was a 4,000-acre variance granted

that exempts them from appeal or from stay under appeal, but that

is only 4,000 acres out of 150,000 acres that are really in bad

shape.

I wanted to know what your thinking was on a NEPA parity program where you could help us go in and remedy some of these situations.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Congresswoman Chenoweth, I appreciate your

kind words and your confidence in the process, that the process can

work, and I tried over the weekend to familiarize myself a little bit

14

with this and with your bill, because I was told you might ask

about it.

I am glad that you believe that the emergency provisions in

NEPA do work, can work and do work, and I think they have been

used 30 or 31 or 32 times fairly successfully, but they do provide

that the agency asks. It is the land management agency or the

transportation agency or whatever agency finds that there is an

emergency, and they need not to escape from under NEPA, but to

find ways to deal with their NEPA problems in an emergency, and

CEQ responds flexibly; at least has in the past.

I think the issue with the bill, which I assume is your bill you

are asking me about, which was opposed, I guess, last year by the

Forest Service and BLM—and I appreciate that you have made

some changes, I understand, this year—the problem with that is

that it doesn’t turn on the agency asking for a shortcut or alternative arrangements. So it would have CEQ telling the agency, in

the case of these 10 areas, you know, where there is a forest health

issue, you have got to consider this to be an emergency, and we

want to give you emergency powers, and we want you to go in

there and cut.

It seems to me that sort of thing is just exactly what Chairman

Hansen was talking about when he criticized CEQ for possibly

wanting to create. That is a top-down; that is creating environmental policy.

So it seems to me that while the emergency provisions are important, and I am certainly willing to use them—we have used them

from forest fires and fish hatchery disease and foreign conflicts—

that it really ought to be at the initiation of the land management

agency to find the emergency. What, ultimately, you have here in

these areas is a disagreement with the land management agencies

about how these lands should be managed, and that is not the kind

of thing, it seems to me, that CEQ should get in the middle of.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think Mr.

Frampton’s comments are very accurate and very thoughtful. The

only difference is that it is the Congress that is finding and the

Congress that is asking. So I hope that I can work with you on it,

and that your comfort level will be met.

Mr. FRAMPTON. I would be delighted to talk to you further about

it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much.

Mr. FRAMPTON. And I accept your point that it is not CEQ; it is

the Congress, through CEQ, directing the agencies to take this

point of view.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would like to work with you on it. Thank

you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from

New Mexico, Mr. Udall. He will be followed by the gentleman from

Idaho, Mr. Simpson.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Frampton, it is good to see you here today. Welcome, and let

me say that I believe we are very lucky to have somebody of your

caliber to serve at CEQ, and I hope that very quickly you can assume other than acting responsibility.

15

Let me ask you about NEPA and all the processes that the Federal Government goes through. In any given year, it seems to me

that Federal agencies prepare approximately 500 EIS’s and 50,000

environmental assessments, and knowing that with the smaller

forces these other members have pointed out, the smaller force that

you have, I was wondering, what have you done in order to really

define and set current priorities with the limited resources you

have? I mean, what is it that you really end up focusing on?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I think that over the years we have tried

to, through guidance, workshops, training, seeing to it that career

people who are responsible in the agencies for administering

NEPA, you know, get more capable—and so we are relying a great

deal on the agencies, obviously, to do their own NEPA work.

I think the focus of CEQ is perhaps turned to simply trying to

solve or monitor the major disputes or problems between Federal

agencies. That is a big part of our caseload, if I can put it that way.

Probably the single most fastest-growing part of CEQ’s work is responding to requests from Members of Congress to solve problems

where somebody is caught between two Federal agencies or a Federal-State conflict of some kind. We can’t handle effectively, I don’t

think, anywhere near all of those requests, and they keep growing

every year.

The real challenge is to try to see whether there is any time left

over to think about helping steer the big projects, the big initiatives, CALFED, Everglades, changing ideas about ecosystem management, but we don’t have a lot of time left over for what was,

I guess, the original, I would say an original sort of No. 1 priority

of CEQ, which was to look ahead and shape environmental policy,

because we have too many important priorities and too many programs that are going forward and need to be kept on track.

So right now it is very much a problem-solving organization, and

that is a big part of our agenda right now.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. It sounds like that you could use additional personnel to deal with some of the big picture environmental issues, the Everglades, Prince William Sound cleanup, and

all of those kinds of things; that you could then shift from some of

what you just described to some of the more national big issues

where you have—another good example, I guess, is the salmon up

in the Northwest, where you have counties and cities and the Federal Government and States all having responsibility.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, the one thing that we have asked for, for

a little bit of additional money in our appropriations this year, is

to work more on State-Federal partnerships with Federal Government. I mean, that is really the most crying need we have. I don’t

know whether the Appropriations Committee will see fit to give us

any resources to do that, but I hope so.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you very much. I yield back

the balance of my time.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Mr. Frampton, I appreciate your being here today to answer

these questions, and I don’t have a lot of specific questions yet.

Coming from Idaho and the Pacific Northwest and the issues that

are significant up there that were just mentioned, dealing with

16

salmon and particularly the States of Washington, Oregon, and

Idaho, Montana, and the difficulties that we have had trying to get

to address the policy of what we are going to do about salmon in

the Pacific Northwest, how it is going to affect our economy, and

in some instances how it is going to devastate our economy, if certain decisions are made relative to salmon?

Tell me your view on how we are going to address that salmon

issue up there, how we are going to resolve this at some point, so

that we can move forward and have a logical environmental policy,

and we can also rely on a forest policy that we will have some timber to cut. We don’t have any timber in Idaho any more to cut. We

have pretty much eliminated cutting timber off of national forests

in Idaho. Jobs in small communities, the jobs are leaving this

State, the State of Idaho, and now we are looking at the agricultural industry and the mining industry. A natural resource State

like Idaho is pretty soon going to become jobless if we don’t quickly

resolve this issue with salmon, and it seems to be driving the whole

economy of the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, it is a pretty broad question, Congressman.

Mr. SIMPSON. Real broad.

Mr. FRAMPTON. I guess I would say that, whether it is the coastal salmon restoration effort or the Columbia and Snake River runs

or the issue of protecting salmon habitat on the east side and the

Columbia Basin, that there are processes going on in each case

that are not by any means exclusively Federal processes. They involve States and counties, and Bonneville Power in the case of the

Columbia River. In each case I think we have to make good science

and good economics and implementability of a strategy, the key criteria for moving forward.

Mr. SIMPSON. You know what, let me just state this: What kind

of bothers me, and I am coming to the conclusion, after having

tried to deal with this in the State legislature for a number of

years, is that salmon isn’t the issue any more. Salmon are used as

the excuse to try to control certain activities on the lands, whether

they are forest practices or mining practices or other things.

I have seen instances where—in the Blackbird Mine, where they

have required environmental impact statements to see the impact

on salmon habitat in the area, and they found out, through historical studies, salmon never entered above Napeus Falls, and so

forth. And then they were sued and decided they had better go

back and redo the environmental impact statement, and decided

that, you know, salmon might have been able to fly at one time and

could have gone up these falls. It is costing these mining industries

and these mining companies where anymore they just want to shut

them down.

I have got some real concerns about that because I want to save

salmon as much as anybody else does, but it seems like we are

using salmon to try to drive other polices, rather than saving salmon.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, certainly the salmon issue is broader than

the fish alone. It involves the priority and the strategy that the

State is going to give to clean water and protection of riparian

areas. Obviously, in the case of commercial and sportfishing and

tribal fishing, it involves, you know, important economic sectors,

17

certainly in Washington and Oregon and northern California, and

tribal treaty rights.

So it isn’t just the fish and it isn’t just listed fish under the Endangered Species Act. These are societal problems, and they have

to be approached, it seems to me, in that way. Right now, you

know, I think these are some of the hardest problems in the country and they are not going to be easy; there aren’t going to be any

easy choices when it comes to salmon; no easy choices.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I appreciate your comments, and there are

going to be no easy choices. I am willing to work on it, and I look

forward to working with you to try to resolve this issue, because

it is provides the most uncertainty in the Pacific Northwest for

businesses that want to locate there or people that want to do business, natural resource businesses in the State of Idaho. We have

got to resolve this uncertainty about what is going to happen in the

future.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind.

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Frampton, for your attendance and testimony

here today.

I just had lunch with my former Senator and former governor

from Wisconsin, and also the founder of Earth Day, Senator Gaylord Nelson, and he and I just want to thank CEQ’s role in the involvement and planning and preparation of Earth Day celebrations

and staging of Earth Day celebrations. Obviously, we are very

proud of that recognition, given Senator Gaylord Nelson’s leadership and role that he has had in it, and we appreciate all of your

assistance.

I have got to run to another meeting in a little bit, but I want

to, first, to blindside you on a question but first extend an invitation to you. I am one of founding co-chairs of the Mississippi River

Task Force, and early on in the work that we are doing to highlight

issues affecting the Mississippi and the watershed area there—

there is a whole lot of programs at all kinds of different levels, but

one thing is perfectly clear, is there is very little coordination of

what is happening at the Federal, State, and local level. We need

to be able to develop some type of coordinating mechanism, not

only between governmental agencies at the Federal, State, and

local level, but the private and public partnership, and what ultimately has to be done in order to preserve and protect this vital

natural resource. I would extend an invitation for us to get together, and maybe a couple of other members of the task force, just

to get together and brainstorm a little bit about it.

We have had a lot of meetings with State officials already, and

with the Corps of Engineers in particular, and what we are hoping

is to develop to some type of long-term vision of the Mississippi,

given the hypoxia problems that exist now in the Gulf of Mexico

and all unique challenges that we face in middle America, something along the Chesapeake Bay Initiative or even the Everglades

Initiative that you have been deeply involved with, but maybe we

can set something like that up sometime in the near future.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you. I would like to do that. I have to say

that, if I could come anywhere near the standards set by Gaylord

18

Nelson, I would be very proud. I mean, I think he taught me something that I never even learned many years as a lawyer, as an advocate. You know, everybody always knew where Gaylord was coming from. He was an advocate, and he never made any apologies

about being an advocate. I have always been an advocate, too. Before I ever went to the Wilderness Society, I was an advocate.

But what Gaylord taught me was how: Be confident about what

you are advocating and don’t ever advocate anything personally.

Don’t rupture your personal relationships. Respect the views of

people on the other side, because you are going to have to work

with them next week, the next month, the next year, and be open

about your positions and stay in the process. I think he was very

successful and very admired, and rightfully so, and he is a great

man.

Mr. KIND. Yes, I think there was a whole lot of lessons for many

of us to learn, and he has been a real role model for me in the conduct of my official duties.

Now the blindside question: There is a lot of interest——

Mr. FRAMPTON. I thought that was the last one.

[Laughter.]

Mr. KIND. There is a lot of interest in western Wisconsin, given

the fact that my congressional district has more miles on the Mississippi than any other congressional district in the Nation, in regard to the American Heritage River Program. We have a lot of

communities that are signed up to participate in it. I know CEQ

has been very involved with the implementation of that program.

Could you just take a minute or so and bring us up to date on your

assessment of where that program is and where it is heading, because quite a few community leaders are getting antsy to get this

off the ground?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I am not familiar with that, your river segment, but, you know, I think that the program is moving forward

slowly, but I have the impression that it is really a great program.

I know that it caused controversy with some Members of Congress

last year, and frankly, I can’t imagine why, because a more benign,

less Federal mandate, Federal money, Federal program I can just

hardly imagine.

This is really an effort to get local communities, catalyze local

communities and local governments and businesses to envision a

future and work together, and promise them, if they did that, we

would, from the Federal side, try to coordinate a little bit what the

Federal programs would be and help them find Federal resources

of information. But all the energy is really coming from the local

side.

Now I know that some river segments are ahead of others. For

example, I went to the signing, a month or two ago, of the first

MOU for one of the American Heritage Rivers, the Rio Grande,

and, boy, there were Members of Congress, mayors, businessmen.

I mean there were hundreds of people there that came up to Washington for that, and they are doing fantastic things.

I do think now we have gotten commitments for river navigators

for every segment, and we are working on or close to finishing

MOUs for every segment. But I know that some are further ahead

than others. So I think we have some work to do, but I think it

19

is a terrific program which basically is helping local people to work

together and envision a better future.

Mr. KIND. I would agree with that.

Mr. FRAMPTON. The problem is that we made a commitment, you

know, no new Federal resources; no new Federal programs. So we

are relying a lot on local energy, and it just takes a little bit of

time.

Mr. KIND. We will be in touch with your office and see if we can

set up some meeting in the not-too-distant future. Thanks again for

coming.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you.

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr.

Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

As a brand-new member of the Committee, I have been sorting

through a lot of these different issues, because in northeast Indiana

I don’t have a day-to-day interaction like those who have a lot of

the parklands or other things. But, in listening to your statement

and in reading it and in going through some of the background materials, I was intrigued by the fact you many times refer to this as

team work and family, and that you are not a czar. I am not quite

sure how you differ from, for example, Mr. Clark, the anti-terrorism czar or General McCaffrey, the drug czar. I don’t know

whether you are like Karinsky; you are not quite a czar. They have

some line authority, but most of them don’t have line authority.

But the danger that many of us fear in an agency, when we start

to put together these kind of quasi-czar-type things, is a mission

creep, because you can almost justify, as Mr. Simpson was referring to about salmon, it can—this leads to this, and this leads to

this. And when we see things like the livability agenda from Vice

President Gore, somebody like myself, who has always been a

right-wing Republican, but I have always been interested in environmental issues, and when I was in college a long time ago, preEarth Day, I went, as a conservative representative, to a number

of environmental conferences, including one in Chicago, that was

kind of the preliminary, which Senator Nelson was and Garett

Harden and Paul Erlich, and many other people that helped launch

that. One of the things that was very, very upsetting to me as a

social conservative was the preoccupation with the overpopulation

and the abortion issue, family planning, euthanasia issues, because

almost every subgroup that I went to, they said, well, if there were

less people, we could do this.

One of my concerns in your mission creep is, can you assure me

that one of the things that you are not going to get involved in are

these extremely divisive issues of population control, particularly

when you start looking at higher-density housing, mass transportation, and knowing that the Sierra Club has on its home page that

they have been a long time involved in this, will you guarantee me

that is not going to be part of the environmental agenda?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I don’t believe, to my knowledge, that CEQ

is now, or has recently at least, been involved in population issues,

and there is certainly no plan to in the future. I understand your

question about mission creep, and I want to respond to that beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:03 Oct 10, 2000 Jkt 066966 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56731 pfrm02 PsN: 56731
20

cause I think, when you look back at the statute and the authorities and the charge to CEQ, statutory purposes of CEQ 1969-1970,

that the Congress was remarkably prescient, because those activities are needed even more today than they were then. And I think

CEQ has remained very true to its congressional charge.

I think if there is a mission creep, it is not because of any accretion of power. It is because environmental issues and natural resource issues have become entwined with all the most important

political and socioeconomic issues that we deal with today, everything the government is involved in, trade and foreign policy and

economic strategy. So one or another of these issues come to CEQ

at some point in a year or two years, inevitably. It is a function

of what is happening in our society, not that CEQ is any more powerful or reaching out to seize any more issues than it did in 1971

or 1972.

Mr. SOUDER. I understand the fundamental dilemma, and I want

to zero-in on my question again because that very pressure, since

in the environmental movement, from its origins, its heavy active

origins, has focused on the population question as defining. You

said that it hasn’t. Are you committing that you won’t?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, you know, I work for the President. I don’t

think I can make, in all honesty, a firm, ironclad commitment forever in the future that CEQ would not work on an issue that related to population, particularly if the Congress passed a statute

that gave us authority or the President directed us to do that. But

I am saying that we don’t work on that issue now and there are

no plans at CEQ; God knows we have more than enough to work

on right now.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to admit upfront that I am an occasionally

paranoid conservative, and in going through your resume and your

background, you worked for Justice Blackmun as he was preparing

on the Roe v. Wade decision. Were you involved in that or in any

of the abortion debate while you were at the Supreme Court?

Mr. FRAMPTON. I worked on the Roe v. Wade case as a law clerk,

yes.

Mr. SOUDER. And do you feel that that puts you in any position

where you have been an advocate or more likely to push for something like this?

Mr. FRAMPTON. No.

Mr. SOUDER. So you have never had any personal opinions? You

merely clerked at that point? Have you ever written on the subject?

Mr. FRAMPTON. I have never written on the subject myself, but

I think it is important to say for the record that, obviously, this

case came before the Court, and I think I fulfilled my duty as a

law clerk in working on the case, advising him, drafting, and so

forth.

Mr. SOUDER. Was that part of the reason he might have picked

you for a clerk? Did he know that was pending? Was that any—

I mean, I am not familiar with the process.

Mr. FRAMPTON. No.

Mr. SOUDER. So you were there, you did your job, but you haven’t

had any activity on this issue when you were in your different

other positions?

21

Mr. FRAMPTON. I have not personally worked on population

issues in my career.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Frampton, we don’t want to hold you responsible for what other people did, and I know none of us appreciate

that.

Some time ago—in fact, in September of 1996—some of us from

Utah got a little bent out of shape with CEQ, and as a matter of

fact, my chief of staff, Nancy Blockinger, called Katie McGinty and

asked her the question: We keep hearing rumors that there is

going to be a designation of a monument. Yet, Governor Levitt

doesn’t know anything about it, and Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett. I didn’t know anything about it, chairing the Committee on

Public Lands and Parks. She said, ‘‘Oh, definitely, there is no plans

that I am aware of. I don’t know anything about it.’’ Then, the next

day, the President was standing on the south rim of the Grand

Canyon and declares this a national monument.

Now I am not saying that I was very familiar with the antiquities law, which gave him the right to do it. So we spent a lot of

time looking at the 73 national monuments that had been created

in the past, who created them, and why they created them.

I found it very interesting that the Antiquities Act called for the

President to designate an archaeological site, much like Rainbow

Bridge National Monument, or an historic site, much like the Golden Spike, or a scientific site, as all other Presidents had up to this

point. And then, the next sentence in the antiquities law says,

‘‘And he shall use the smallest acreage available to protect that

site.’’

In this instance, No. 1, the President did not disclose what it was

that he was trying to protect. No. 2, he used 1.7 million acres. And

a lot of us would think he was really trying to get to Andalex and

the coal mine at Smokey Hollow, because it appears that NEPA

was going to come out and say that it was no significant impact

after they finished EIS on it; that appeared what it would be. Well,

as I said, I can’t hold you responsible for that, nor would I want

to.

On the other side of the coin, we felt pretty bad about that procedure. So I subpoenaed the papers from CEQ, which were every reluctant to give them to us. And finally, we almost had to do a contempt of Congress before they got up here.

Be that as it may, it was very revealing to us when we got those

papers, and this Committee did a little pamphlet called, ‘‘Behind

Closed Doors.’’ And we were very distressed about that. And most

of the people in the West and the Western Caucus and people on

this Committee on both sides of the political aisle were so distressed about it that they passed legislation to limit the President

to 50,000 acres. As you know, there are very few national monuments that exceed that; most of them are very small. In fact, the

District of Columbia is only 38,000 acres. That got bogged down

over on the Senate side.

Well, I would just like to ask you, very candidly, are you or the

CEQ or is anyone planning any more national monuments? And if

they are, where are they? And let us know about it.

22

I honestly, as I read the Constitution, I feel that that is left to

Congress to do those things, and personally I think the 1906 antiquity law is an antiquated law, because at the time that it was

passed, there was no Wilderness Act, no FLPMA, no 1915 Organic

Act; none of those laws were on the books. So I don’t really see a

reason for it being there, but possibly this is unfair, and if so, I certainly understand you telling me that you won’t answer. But I

would be curious to know.

The reason I say that is Secretary Babbitt asked me about working with me on a national monument on the Arizona Strip. I hear

the President is going to go out and start making some announcements.

Are we going to get this thing again or what is going to happen?

Could I, please, just pose that to you and hear your response?

Mr. FRAMPTON. I would be happy to respond to the question, Mr.

Chairman. CEQ is not planning any national monument proposals,

and the only one that is being planned or under consideration by

anyone that I know of is the proposal that Secretary Babbitt announced. I know he has talked to members of the Arizona delegation, held some hearings. If he develops a proposal—and he said

that he would like to submit that to Congress for legislation. If he

were to submit it to the President as a possible national monument

subject for proclamation, then it would come to the White House

as his recommendation and the President would have to decide on

that.

Mr. HANSEN. Excuse me, sir. Has a proclamation been issued?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Has a presidential proclamation been issued?

Mr. HANSEN. Has one been written, a presidential proclamation,

to the best of your knowledge?

Mr. FRAMPTON. No, there is no proposal that has come to the

White House or the President from Secretary Babbitt on this. In

fact, he has said he is going to hold some more hearings, I think.

My knowledge of this is mostly newspaper clips.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, much to the Secretary’s credit, he has taken

the time to talk to us about it, and of course, he was in Arizona

recently holding a public hearing regarding this thing, which would

basically be a monument on the Arizona Strip area.

The one thing that kind of bothers me a little bit is I have fought

with you folks—I don’t know if that is the correct word, but we

have had a few differences of opinion—on NEPA. Snow Basin is a

classic example of that, which we did a land exchange. There are

other examples. As you know, more legislation goes through the

Committee on Parks and Lands than probably any other committee

in Congress—a lot of little boundary changes.

Whether it is the Interior Department or the Agriculture Department, they are always talking NEPA. However, they conveniently

waived NEPA on the Grand Staircase Escalante, and we almost got

the impression—again, I am not trying to hold you responsible and

please don’t take it that way—that if they like it, they waive

NEPA, and if they don’t like it, they use NEPA as the hammer to

handle us on that.

So I am assuming that, in the event that Secretary Babbitt and

the delegation of Arizona—and we are concerned also, those of us

23

in southern Utah—if we do another monument, will NEPA be followed on that or will there be a way to waive it this time?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think NEPA was

waived in the case of the Grand Staircase. I think that it was a

presidential decision, and NEPA does not apply to presidential decisions. That is pretty well settled law. That is my understanding

at least.

Now I know that the issue of whether—or I believe the issue of

whether there should have been some NEPA, additional NEPA activities there, may be still subject to litigation, but I think it is

pretty well settled law that—and the Antiquities Act is a pretty

unique presidential power, confers on the President a really unique

presidential—singular presidential authority to do this, and NEPA

doesn’t apply to presidential decisions.

Mr. HANSEN. With the indulgence of my colleagues here—we

have two more to hear from let me just ask a quickie here. Is CEQ

involved in making an announcement on Earth Day, April 22nd of

this year, with President Clinton and Vice President Gore or anyone else in the administration, regarding the environment, resource

management, or preservation? If so, what is the nature of this announcement, and will Congress and this Committee be given notice

before any announcement?

Mr. FRAMPTON. I hope we will be involved. I don’t think any final

decision has been made. A lot of other things are going on in the

west wing these days. We would be delighted to give you some notice, when a decision is made.

Mr. HANSEN. All right, we do appreciate——

Mr. FRAMPTON. But I certainly hope the President and Vice

President will get out there on Earth Day and do something attractive and productive.

Mr. HANSEN. Tell the folks to be careful of the Mall, will you?

You know, the most important cleanup or the most exhaustive

cleanup we have is Earth Day. You might bring two beavers along,

says the gentleman from Minnesota. But, you know, it strikes me

funny the people who believe in Earth Day make the biggest mess

there is on the Mall.

The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Frampton, welcome. It is our first time to have a little discussion. I am probably one of the only members, if not the only

member, on the Committee that actually has the Columbia River

in his district, and so I am somewhat familiar with some of the

issues.

I was intrigued by your comment about being an advocate, an

unabashed advocate, and I respect that. I don’t know that that is

what I want in your position, given some of the views of people in

my district, given your past history, but I respect your honesty in

talking about that advocacy.

My question comes, or a couple of them: First of all, in NEPA,

the role which you think social and economic interests play in consideration of various activities within the government—I have got

to tell you, I am not real hopeful we are going to see, as my colleague from Idaho indicated, much help for our rural communities

at this time probably for the next two years, and yet we have got

24

enormous forest ecosystem problems with bug infestations, blowdowns. I know, in meeting with Forest Service officials, even they

told me just this last week in Medford that they have to do a complete aquatic analysis under the Northwest Forest Plan to replace

the planks on a lookout station, which seems a bit bizarre. They’re

going to send me that information.

But it is those sorts of issues. I sometimes think the studies have

gone a little outside of the bounds of common sense, but it is really

the social economic component, I believe under NEPA, that is supposed to be considered. And I just wonder what weight they are

given.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I think that they are—I hope they are

given appropriate weight. You asked specifically about an example

under the Northwest Forest Plan. You know, when the Clinton Administration came here, there was, you could say, socioeconomic

disaster in the forests of the Pacific Northwest on the west side,

because courts had enjoined most of the forest management activities. I think that, looking back now four or five years, that the

Northwest Forest Plan has been a model of integrating environmental protection and good science with socioeconomic factors.

We have a stable timber harvest, and part of that was a Jobs in

the Woods Program. In fact, one of the representatives of the carpenters came in to see me about a month and a half ago saying,

‘‘We want CEQ to help us expand Jobs in the Woods on the east

side, because the Labor Department and the Commerce Department, you know, they have their own specific interests, but you

folks at CEQ see the big picture, and we think you are the place

to come to help us sort of get something started here.’’

So that is the job of CEQ, to balance and integrate a full range

of considerations, and I hope we do that. And if we don’t do it, then

we should get called on it.

Mr. WALDEN. You know, I don’t claim to be an expert on the

Northwest Forest Plan, but I can tell you, when the cut has been

reduced to what it is—I mean, it was projected to go down 70 or

80 percent. Most of it is in some form of litigation anyway. There

aren’t many mills left. I don’t think we ought to kid ourselves that

the economy is rosy under the Northwest Forest Plan. There are

enough other mitigating things that come in to basically shut it

down. It is sure not the comment I get from those who are actually

out there. In fact, timber sales that have gone through appeal in

the Wynema have just been pulled back by Chief Dombeck, for reasons that I still am not sure of, that were offered and authorized

under the Northwest Forest Act, and yet, he sort of wants under

his new road list moratorium, and yet, they were offered; they were

out there; they had gone through appeals and been approved, and

yet, the Forest Service pulls it back. So I guess you have got some

advocacy to do on me to convince me that has been a grand

scheme.

Let me get back to a question my colleague, Mr. Peterson, asked

because I didn’t really hear the answer. You talked about global

warming and some of the initiatives of the administration, but I

never really heard the answer about are healthy, green forests better than bug-infested, dying forests when it comes to improving the

ozone layer and oxygen, and all?

25

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, my answer was—and I didn’t mean to be

vague about it—that, unfortunately, we don’t have the science to

support a very good understanding of the answer to the question

that he asked. I don’t pretend to be an expert on this, but the fact

of the matter is that what we are learning is that, what happens

in the soil and what happens with an unhealthy forest staying in

the condition that it is in, what happens in the soil and what happens underneath the soil may be more important than what happens above the ground.

So we are learning all the time about the carbon characteristics

of forest, things that we didn’t know two years ago or five years

ago, and I don’t want to volunteer what would be—you know,

somebody would hold me to be a scientifically-accurate answer. I

responded to the question by saying we want to use growing forests

to help this problem. The timber industry, the agriculture industry

in this country can benefit greatly from that, but if we are going

to argue that in an international community we are going to need

better science to do that——

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask just one more question?

I know my time has run out.

And that is, when it comes to your enforcement of NEPA and the

other laws under your jurisdiction, do you intend to apply the same

vigor and level of enforcement to those laws now that they are listings in the metropolitan areas—Seattle and Portland, for example—as have been applied to these laws in the rural communities?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Sherwood.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are going to beat this one to death, Mr. Frampton, but I was

going to ask the same question as my friend Greg did, because I

didn’t understand your answer to John Peterson’s question also.

It is my understanding that the science is that a growing forest

retains more water. It holds the water back and manages the water

table better, and it absorbs more carbon; it provides more habitat

for game, and it certainly grows better timber. As I see your management, and I look at the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania and a few things, it seems to me like our timber policies are

more preservationist than wise use. And I would like to get your

comment on that.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, let me see if I can respond to the two questions. The first question, the original question that was asked of

me had to do with whether a young, healthy, growing forest captures more carbon than, let’s say, an unhealthy, bug-infested forest

where trees are falling down, and my answer to that question is

that we really don’t know enough, I don’t know enough, I am not

sure we know enough to give a definitive answer to that question.

Three or four years ago people would have said yes. Now what

we are learning is, if we take away the unhealthy forest, disturb

the soil, that the total impact on carbon release there may far exceed the carbon capture over 20 or 30 years of a young growing forest. We don’t know enough about that to know. And I didn’t want

to volunteer what someone would take perhaps to be a definitive

26

answer to the question, and that is my honest answer. I am not

sure that we know enough to know that.

The second question you asked me really is a broader question

about forest management, I guess, across the country. I don’t think

that our overall forest management policies for public forest are

preservationist. I think what they are is designed to try to build

in concepts of real sustainablity.

Now one can disagree whether a lower timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest Plan is something that is good policy or bad policy,

but it is sustainable and it will go on year after year, decade after

decade, which was not a path we were on for the last 20 or 30

years.

So I think our forest policies are really aimed at sustaining all

the resources of the forest. Balance and sustainablity are really the

key words of forest policy. I don’t think they are preservationistoriented, and I don’t think they are wise-use-oriented, either.

Mr. SHERWOOD. See, my experience is the eastern forest, and

when you talk about disturbing the soil, that is usually how you

get a new forest and that is how you get the acorn seed. We have

very viable hardwood trees becoming over mature in the Allegheny

National Forest because of the ban on cutting, and we also have

market forces stripping the ground that is outside the forest, outside the Allegheny National Forest, because there is such a high

demand now for the resource. I think our policy there is unwise in

the context of the greater forest in the Northeast.

But timber is a resource. In my opinion, it is a resource that we

are very fortunate in this country to have, and I agree with

sustainablity. Our forest turns over not very rapidly in the Northeast, but if it is carefully managed, it can be cut every 20 or 30

years very successfully. I just wanted to give you my opinion on

that and get yours, and I think we don’t totally disagree, but we

don’t totally agree either.

Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Sherwood’s comments, part of

the problem with the Pacific Northwest was that we legislated the

cuts at 4 billion board feet a year in terms of sales, and that was

way over the sustainablity level, and so that was done by us. We

should have paid more attention to it. I think now we are faced

with, obviously, forests are much more—the use is much more than

just for timber harvest; of course, there’s a broad array of different

uses that they have.

I don’t know; I mean, I understand the forest plan, and I lived

up close and personal with some of the problems. I was just going

to point out to my colleagues that I was going over the appropriations testimony, and I saw when someone said something about

creep in terms of mission, in fact, that is one of your responsibilities at the Conservation Reserve Program, where the Council on

Environmental Quality, for instance, has to pass judgment on

much of that policy that goes down. I also noted that so much of

what we may be objecting to in terms of the enhanced role here is,

in fact, done legislatively.

I also noticed that—and I thought maybe that this would be important because there are two Udalls on the Committee—that the

27

U.S. Institute for Environmental Dispute Resolution, now that all

sit on that—you wear a lot of hats in this particular role. I mean,

it seems to me that there is a case that could probably be made

for quite a bit of personnel, if we really expect you to carry these

roles out successfully. I mean, to have a central role in them, I

would think that there would be more enthusiasm for, in fact, providing the proper funding.

Of course, I am aware of, and this Committee I think has been

very jealous in terms of, guarding its legislative prerogatives to the

point of building up a mountain of work that we don’t always put

a dent in each year, especially when we have such a disagreement

on the Committee and within the Congress on some of the issues

that are before us. So the consequence is that a lot of other agencies, departments, and others have a lot of delegated responsibilities, administrative role, but we still retain some with the Committee, but I think that there is a broad array of responsibility in

terms of the different land managers, and certainly with regard to

CEQ and yourself in this role, Mr. Frampton, to carry out these responsibilities.

I guess if you can deliver any more problems to us where you

have got some solutions, I think it is helpful. I don’t know; I can’t

promise that everyone is going to like the answer.

Mr. FRAMPTON. We don’t want to deliver problems. We want to

deliver solutions. I mean, you mentioned the creep. Just an example, I was out in Oregon a few weeks ago, going around with the

governor and with some local people on watershed councils, restoration councils, and learned from people in the Agriculture Department that farmers there are not signing up; there is a lot of

money, but farmers are not signing up for the conservation reserve

enhancement program.

Well, why not? Well, because they don’t get—if they sign up for

the program and they plant trees next to streams, they don’t get—

they are saying to the Agriculture Department, do we get a pass

under the Clean Water Act? I mean, if we join your program, do

we have other Federal agencies saying okay for 10 years? And the

answer is, we don’t know. That is an example of something that,

only if you are in the middle of this process where the roads cross

can you say, well, yes, the answer to that ought to be yes.

So how do we get to yes here? Well, we get EPA together with

the Agriculture Department in Washington and the region and try

to help the people in Ag who are on the ground be able to say yes

to farmers. I mean, there are 1,000 ways in which our existing environmental laws cross, and not very many people in the Federal

Government with the responsibility to see that they cross in an intelligent way.

Mr. VENTO. Bringing up that topic, I see the CEQ continues to

work with EPA and USDA, the co-chairs of the Clean Water Action

Plan, and that is another little task for you. I am specifically interested in urban policy or the smart growth type of plans. Obviously,

we had boasted of having a pretty good policy regarding that in the

State that I hail from, Minnesota, but I think it has fallen on hard

times. But with a another name you will recognize, Ted Mondale,

chairing the Metropolitan Council now, we hope that we will be

breathing some new life into that particular process and be able to

28

engage and use some of the Federal programs to help enhance that

program.

But thanks, George, thanks for your testimony. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Oregon, an additional question?

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.

I appreciate your comments about the interaction among Federal

agencies. In fact, this meeting I had with the Forest Service, they

pointed out, I believe, when they go to do something, there are 91

Federal laws that apply to them——

Mr. FRAMPTON. That sounds right.

Mr. WALDEN. [continuing] and their frustration of trying to make

sure everyone of those is met. And that is part of my frustration

about Northwest Forest Plan, because they are saying we are not

getting sued under the Endangered Species Act anymore; we are

getting sued under the Clean Water Act. And, indeed, that is what

is going on in the Columbia River today.

Every problem has created a new Federal law over the last 20

or 30 or 40 years, and it is darn near impossible to mesh them all

and come out with an end product. And, yet, on the ground you can

see the kind of work people are willing to do in the watersheds of

Oregon to stop erosion, cool down streams, improve fish habitat.

Sometimes we just feel so bound up that, no matter what we do,

we are going to get hit.

I want to go back to this green tree thing for just another

thought. As I understand it, under the Clean Air Act there are

power companies that get environmental credits, if you will, for

planting trees down in Central America and around to add the

cleaning the airsheds down there against them burning coal up

here—PacifiCorps to be specific. They run ads on TV out there

about how they are planting trees, and they told me that is because

they get environmental credits against what they burn somewhere

else.

If planting trees down there helps the environment, how does

that jive with what we were just talking about, that you don’t feel

you have the adequate science to make that determination? And do

we, therefore, have conflicting policies?

Mr. FRAMPTON. You know, I am not familiar with what

PacifiCorps has done in detail, but I think most of the forest enhancement or forest preservation projects that have generated

Clean Air Act sulfur credits have been done through the preserving

forests, buying forest and preserving forests, not growing new forest, but I may be wrong about that. I would be happy to respond

to you, find out more about this and respond to you.

Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate that.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. FRAMPTON. And you raised a good—you and your colleagues

have raised a good question here about the carbon retention issues,

and I would like to respond more. I am just reluctant to respond

on an issue which I don’t know enough about and which I know

that we need to know more about.

29

Mr. WALDEN. That is just one of the 91 Federal laws that you

probably have to know every detail of. So I appreciate that and

look forward to your response.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Mr. Frampton, as you know, we will have some additional questions. With your indulgence, we would like the submit those to you

today. No fault to you, of course, but we have noticed in the past,

when we submit questions we don’t see answers for quite a while.

You are not as bad as the Pentagon, however. Usually they wait

until the issue is dead and then they bring it up.

Mr. FRAMPTON. But our issues never go away, Mr. Chairman, so

we cannot do that.

Mr. HANSEN. We would appreciate as rapid a turnaround as possible. I often accuse the Pentagon that there is a room in the basement where they put studies and answers to congressional questions, hoping they will go away.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Let me just say one quick thing here that bothered

me a little bit, and I will read this to you, and you can correct this

error, if you are so inclined. The policy of NEPA states that Federal

agencies will work in cooperation with, among others, local governments such as counties. This cooperation includes financial and

technical assistance. Yet, when the regulations were promulgated

for NEPA, they only included Federal agencies as being cooperating

agencies, although it is my understanding that the BLM, Forest

Service, and Park Service have issued a statement clarifying that

State, local, and tribal governments can become cooperating agencies. This is currently not in the regulations.

We got one thing saying one thing, and one saying another, if our

guys are correct. Therefore, in my mind, I think that from your organization the regulation should be re-written to include State,

local, and tribal governments as cooperating agencies. This basically comes from a lot of our local people who don’t have a hand

in these things, and I can’t speak with firsthand knowledge to that

effect, but if that is the case, it would seem to me it would be reasonable to amend that, so that the law and the regulation walk a

parallel path.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can clarify that. My understanding is that both the law and the regulations provide that

State and local governments and tribes may be cooperating parties

in the NEPA process when they have special jurisdiction, but the

issue there has been whether the agencies actually are generous in

allowing them to be.

Senator Thomas has introduced a bill that would change the law

to require that such local governments be cooperating agencies. I

had a meeting with him the week before last on that, and it is clear

that, since he sees that CEQ has been pushing this but wants to

push it further, in my discussions with him it was clear that what

he was looking for was—I think the spirit of what you’re looking

for—is a stronger policy that is directed at the agencies. And I am

actually looking at this. I think it is in the regulations, but it is

not mandatory; it is permissive.

30

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I appreciate your answer. I guess Senator

Thomas could do that, and we could take out a ‘‘may’’ and put a

‘‘shall’’ in there, I guess, without much trouble. On the other side

of the coin, I would be more curious at how you personally would

look at it and how you would do it as the head man of CEQ.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I personally think that CEQ needs to get

out some kind of stronger policy or guidance telling the agencies

that they should in most cases have the appropriate local and State

agencies as cooperating agencies. I think we need to—I mean, I am

in favor of this and so is Ms. McGinty. I think CEQ has worked

on this issue with agencies before—to get the land management

agencies, for example, to bring in more cooperating parties. The

question is, whether we are going to be more emphatic in our policy

or guidance, and I favor being more emphatic about it.

Mr. HANSEN. I would appreciate that and I think that makes a

lot of sense.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. VENTO. A different topic, but in some cases I suppose local

governments may or may not have the resources or the expertise

to participate in that level; would that be accurate?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, that is an issue. I think some local governments think that being a cooperating party gives them either a bigger decision role or somebody else to pay for their participation,

and it doesn’t give them either. So we don’t want to create unfair

expectations that the Federal Government or somebody else is suddenly going to pay for them to participate as a cooperating party.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I just wanted to make certain, as it were, because as you look at this, I mean, it is one thing to—it is going to

take time, obviously, and energy, but if they are technically not—

they can’t offer the technical assistance or do the other type of

work, then, obviously, what I think in those cases where you have

that occur, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that maybe it is a question,

then, of having the State do it, where you know most States would

have that technical expertise, and then it would be a decision that

they could work out between the States and local governments. But

a lot of these decisions may fall on a government that does not

have significant resources—that’s all I’m suggesting—or the scientists on staff, and so forth, that they need. Because when I talk

to the agencies that are doing this, they now claim they need

Ph.D.’s and they need people with master’s degrees, and so forth,

to actually do the type of work that is required in some of the EIS’s

and EA’s. I mean, that is what it takes. So I don’t think we ought

to kid ourselves about that.

Mr. HANSEN. I have been under the impression that the law provided the financial and technical assistance to the State governments. I really think they should have the option, though—I mean,

just to be totally ignored is a little tough on these people, especially

a little county or city where someone comes in and some high rolling thing goes on, and they are sitting there being the elected officials and having someone go over their head.

You mentioned earlier to the gentleman from Minnesota, I believe it was, concerning that there was a council of one for a while

there; when there should have been three, we had one person running the show. How is it going to go now? Are you going to be just

31

you as chairman or are you going to have a couple of folks to help

you out?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, as far as I know, Mr. Chairman, for the

last whatever, 10 or 12 years, both the administration and the Congress have been happy to have the authority vested in one council

member. I mean, I will tell you from my point of view, after four

months in an acting capacity, that it works pretty well, obviously,

from an agency this size.

The problem is that we are a very downsized agency. I mean, the

decision to go to one council member was made at a time, or in the

1980’s, at a time when this agency was twice as big. So if you really wanted to have three council members and you had to support

them, and staff and offices, and so forth, I think there is a fair

question whether that would be a very useful use of the taxpayers’

money at this point with an agency this size. Now, if we were, you

know, a $30 million agency, that would be a different thing.

Mr. HANSEN. What does the statute say? When it was created,

wasn’t it created by statute?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes, the statute contemplated three council members.

Mr. HANSEN. Does it say three or just kind of leaves that a little

nebulous?

Mr. FRAMPTON. I believe it says three, yes.

Mr. HANSEN. I see.

Mr. FRAMPTON. But the Congress every year simply——

Mr. HANSEN. I get from your statement that you feel one is more

than sufficient?

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, you said, if we were a $30 million agency,

would I like to have two colleagues? I think it would be a different

situation, but would I like to spend 50 or 60 percent of the budget

supporting two more council members and having a third as many

staff members; I am not sure that would be a very efficient use of

your money.

Mr. HANSEN. More of a theocracy than a democracy. No disrespect there.

Well, Mr. Frampton, thank you for your indulgence, and we surely appreciate you being with us today and responding to our questions.

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The meeting will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

32

STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON, JR., ACTING CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Mr. Chairman, Representative Miller, members of the House Resources Committee:

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As you well know, NEPA is truly

a landmark statute; indeed, it is the foundation of our nation’s environmental policymaking. It is my statutory responsibility as Acting Chairman of the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) to oversee the Federal Government’s implementation

of NEPA, a responsibility I take very seriously.

In enacting NEPA nearly 30 years ago, the Congress understood that true environmental protection can be achieved only by incorporating this goal into the very

fabric of Federal decision making. In pursuit of this overarching objective, NEPA set

forth four fundamental principles. The first is the full integration of environmental,

economic and social objectives—the recognition that they are not competing or contradictory, but inextricably linked. The second is sound decision-making based on

thorough, objective analysis of all relevant data. The third is effective coordination

of all Federal players in the development and execution of environmental policy.

And the fourth is the democratization of decision making—giving citizens and communities a direct voice in decisions affecting their environment and their well being.

Congress charged CEQ with lead responsibility for putting these principles into

practice. Experience has shown that one of the best ways we can achieve this mission is by promoting partnerships among those responsible for creating, and those

affected by, environmental policy. Indeed, state and local governments, the business

community, and other stakeholders are looking to CEQ to play even a larger role

in helping to forge such partnerships. For this reason, our Fiscal Year 2000 budget

requests seek additional resources to carry out a Partnership Program that builds

on CEQ’s unique coordinating role within the Federal family.

My appreciation of NEPA—and of the importance of collaborative approaches to

environmental policy making—was heavily influenced by my experiences from 1993

to 1997 as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Much of my work at Interior involved building teamwork and consensus among

agencies within the Department; among various Federal departments and agencies

with different priorities and missions; and among state and local governments, private landowners, and other stakeholders.

One such undertaking was the Federal/state task force that developed a comprehensive restoration plan for the Everglades/South Florida Ecosystem, the largest

ecosystem restoration ever undertaken in the United States. This six-year effort,

which enjoys bipartisan support at both the Federal and state level, is scheduled

to come to fruition this June.

Another major success was our effort to develop a new paradigm for the Endangered Species Act, including the pioneering use of Habitat Conservation Plans with

private landowners, and collaborations with state and local governments such as

Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program (NCCP) in the Southern

California counties of San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties. In addition, in

partnership with Governor Leavitt of Utah and the Western Governors Association,

I helped craft a reform proposal for the Endangered Species Act that became an important basis for the Kempthome bill reported out of this Committee.

As the lead Federal trustee in the Federal/state Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee

Council, I joined with then-Governor Wally Hickel of Alaska to forge a balanced,

comprehensive program guiding the use of the civil penalty paid by Exxon to restore

Prince William Sound and the Exxon Valdez spill area in South Central Alaska.

This program, based on the best available science and broad public input, found

wide support among Federal and state agencies, Native Corporations, fishermen, environmentalists, and local and Alaska residents.

Working with the Alaska Department of Economic Development, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Park Service, I also negotiated an agreement to

locate one of the nation’s first Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Projects adjacent to Denali National Park. Among the benefits of this innovative project are improved visibility and air quality. Without this agreement, the project would have

foundered.

While at Interior, I came to recognize that almost every important environmental

or natural resource issue facing the Federal Government today requires coordination

among more than one Federal agency or department. Most of these issues also demand close cooperation, and often a sustained partnership, with state and local government as well.

33

This is where CEQ—and NEPA, the statute that created it—play an absolutely

indispensable role.

Earlier, I summarized the four core principles underlying NEPA. To advance

these principles, the statute established three primary mechanisms. The first is the

explicit requirement that agencies fully integrate NEPA’s goals and policies into

their planning and their day-to-day activities. The second is the environmental review process, which ensures rational decision making informed by sound data and

full public participation. The third is CEQ, a permanent environmental body within

the Executive Office of the President.

CEQ’s principal role is to advise the President on the development of environment

policy. Other responsibilities include monitoring environmental trends, assessing the

success of existing policies, advising Federal agencies on their responsibilities under

NEPA and, when necessary, mediating NEPA conflicts among the agencies. But one

of the most critical roles assigned to CEQ by the Congress is coordinating the work

of the Federal family on environmental issues.

Over the past four months as Acting Chairman of CEQ, a very large part of my

work has been oriented to this practical, problem-solving side of CEQ’s mandate:

seeing to it that Federal departments and agencies are on the same page, are working together.

I’ve been reminded often, as I was at the Interior Department, how important it

is that the Federal family speak with one voice. This subject comes up over and over

again with mayors, county executives, and governors, as well as with representatives of regulated groups and industries.

In November, when I addressed the Western Governors Association (WGA) meeting in Phoenix, many of the Governors explained how important CEQ is to them

because it is the only place where ‘‘all roads cross’’ when it comes to Federal environmental policy. It is the only place they can go for help when they are caught

between Federal environmental statutes or agencies, or want to appeal an agency

policy or decision. In fact, several governors said publicly they are dismayed that

CEQ is so small and has so few resources, given the importance of its role to their

constituents.

A significant part of CEQ’s casework relates to the NEPA process, and particularly to the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA). Typical of CEQ’s involvement is a recent settlement in

a case involving the Longhorn Pipeline, which runs from Austin to San Antonio. A

proposal to use this former oil pipeline to transmit natural gas—serving, among

other things, poor communities with inadequate energy supply—faced potentially

fatal delays because proponents sought to avoid NEPA’s applications and a Federal

court held that an EIS might be required. A CEQ-brokered court settlement satisfactory to all parties calls for prompt preparation of a robust EA that will provide

the public with ample information and meet NEPA legal requirements in time to

allow for key investment decisions.

State and local governments, and other stakeholders, look to CEQ for leadership

on new initiatives as well. For example, last fall the Governors of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska asked the Administration to create a Federal fund

to help them restore endangered coastal salmon runs—with an absolute minimum

of Federal red tape. But to ensure accountability to the Federal Government and

Congress, and coordination on a regional basis, the Governors proposed that the

Federal coordinating role be undertaken by CEQ. Responding to their request, the

President’s proposed FY 2000 budget indeed includes a $100 million Pacific Coastal

Salmon Recovery fund to help states, tribes and local communities restore coastal

salmon.

Clearly CEQ’s ‘‘casework’’ and coordinating roles are also very important to many

Members of Congress. The number of requests and referrals from Members seeking

improved NEPA coordination among the agencies is increasing every year.

Yet CEQ today has fewer staff members and a smaller budget than it had during

much of the 1970’s—nearly a third less staff even than at the end of the Bush Administration.

For this reason, the President’s proposed FY 2000 Budget requests additional

funding for CEQ to carry out the ‘‘partnership program’’ to work more closely with

governments, mayors, and private individuals in collaborative initiatives and in

problem-solving in the field.

My vision for CEQ is no more and no less than the vision I believe Congress had

in 1969: a balanced, coordinated and effective Federal environmental policy; and a

process for democratic, informed environmental decision making.

In six years this Administration has compiled a record of strong enviromnental

protection as good as that of any President in history, while catalyzing and overseeing the strongest economic recovery since World War II. There is no longer any

34

reason to debate whether rigorous environmental standards go hand in hand with

economic progress. The history is now clear, and the record speaks for itself.

I am proud of the part CEQ—and NEPA—have played in establishing that record

and look forward to working with the Congress to continue building on it, for the

sake of our environment and the American people.