Six years ago, I came before this Committee as the President's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. I said I believed that, if confirmed, you would find me to be open, fair, and a reasonable and constructive partner with the Congress. I also said that as an advocate in different professional roles throughout my career, I had based my advocacy on sound facts, fairness, practicality, and the importance of maintaining personal credibility.
You did vote to confirm me, and as an Assistant Secretary of the Interior from 1993 to 1997, I believe I fulfilled the trust you placed in me. I further believe that the insight and experience gained during my time at Interior help immeasurably in fulfilling the responsibilities I assumed upon becoming acting Chairman of CEQ five months ago.
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 Kempthorne 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.
To cite just a few other examples: I was a principal in the collaborative effort with the Forest Service and the Department of Commerce to finalize the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. I worked with the armed services to develop cooperative programs to protect habitat on military bases. With the State of California, the Corps of Engineers, and the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, I led the effort to use port mitigation funding to purchase and bring into protective ownership of the State the largest remaining estuarine wetlands on the California coast. In Montana, Utah, and North Carolina, I oversaw the implementation of innovative habitat plans with landowners and county governments to protect endangered species.
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.
This is where the Council on Environmental Quality plays an indispensable role.
CEQ was created by the Congress in 1969 to advise the President on the long-term direction of environmental policy. But equally important -- and especially critical today -- was Congress' direction to coordinate the environmental work of the federal family, and to oversee implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
First, CEQ was to make sure that federal agencies are working together, not at cross purposes, and to referee disputes between the agencies. Congress envisioned CEQ as a 'neutral' arbiter free of "agency bias" -- that is, commitment to a particular regulatory approach or agency mission. As such, CEQ could ensure that the broadest set of environmental goals was being advanced.
Second, CEQ was charged with an even broader mandate: to make sure that in the articulation and implementation of the nation's environmental program, economic and social imperatives were fully taken into account. Sound environmental strategy that is based on good science, and is broad-based rather than parochial in scope -- this, I believe, was the vision of Congress.
A parallel vision embodied in NEPA is that federal agencies make important decisions affecting the environment in a democratic way, only after a thorough examination of the likely impacts of alternative courses of action. By putting sound information before the public and government managers, informed public input to such decisions would be guaranteed.
Both of these visions -- coordination and balance, and informed democratic decision making -- were prescient for 1969, a time when the Environmental Protection Agency did not yet even exist. They remain cornerstones of the nation's environmental policy making, and have been at the heart of our environmental progress over the past three decades.
In my work over the past five 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 have 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 a 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 environmental 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 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.