Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120360691
label
Johnston Amendment S.171
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120360691
contentType
document
title
Johnston Amendment S.171
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120360691
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg2-031-015-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
de9b18f9f7849f41
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
4299
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Johnston Amendment S.171
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
7
1
3
83
09:49
245 4046
EPA/OCLA
002
SENT BY:CEQ
; 7-20-93 ; 5:44PM ;
CEQ-
202 260 4046:# 3
358
have to
list cll
Jack- Here are EPA's comments.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
what are your thoughts? not
July 20, 1993
Does it make sense
Dear Congressman Waxman and others:
to mention the Johnston
Thank Dear you Garthmen for giving me the benefit of your thoughts on the amendment,
proposed Johnston Amendment to S. 171, the Department of the
Environment Bill. I apologize for the delay in my response, but
I wanted to explore this issue personally with the appropriate
people on my staff and with the Vice President.
given your
I share your enthusiasm for elevating the Environmental
discussions
Protection Agency to cabinet level status. I also believe that
this step will help us to ensure that environmental concerns ere
an integral part of decision-making at the highest level of the
Executive Branch.
with Wax man?
I also understand your concerns about the proposed Johnston
amendment which would require that comprehensive risk analysis be
performed before any rulemaking is finalized by the new
TREY
Department.
The Administration opposes inclusion of the Johnston
any amendments Ampndment in this legislater
this legislation. We de not believe that this addition would-
that
help us accomplish the reorganization of environmental functions.
that we equit and therefore urge thet neither the House nor the
are
Conference include it in the Bill. More generally, it is our
uniclated
intention to oppose any emendments relating to policy or the
substance of EPA's mission to protect human health and the
to
environment. We urge, instead, that the focus of this
legislation be kept on organizational and similar structural
issues rather than on matters of environmental policy as such.
Branch
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
We do not believe that any specific reference
to or consent In the Johnston Amendment is
BC
possible at this time, as we discussed yesterday
miggest discussing the Administration's goals in
given Senete Johnsbis concern. Instead, we
as c matter of structural change, and do
elevating EPA : to accomplish it expeditiously to
no with little cost.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
July 20, 1993
Dear Congressman Waxman and others:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on the
proposed Johnson Amendment to S. 171, the Department of the
Environment Bill. It was good to hear from you, and I apologize
for the delay in my response.
As you know, I am committed to the preservation of our nation's
environment. I share your enthusiasm for elevating the
Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet level status. I also
believe that the new Department of the Environment will ensure
that environmental concerns are an integral part of decision-
making at the highest level of the federal government.
I understand your concerns about the proposed Johnson amendment
which will require that a cost-benefit analysis be performed
before any final rulemaking is issued by the new Department.
Please be assured that this Administration opposed the Johnson
Amendment on the Senate floor and will continue to oppose it in
the House and in Conference. It is our view that while this
Administration can accept the organization or operation of the
Department, we will continue to oppose any amendments relating to
policy or the substance of EPA's mission to protect human health
and the environment.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
2
BC
7-21
Todd 9:15 Stern
July 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR JACK QUINN
TRACY THORNTON
FROM:
KATIE MCGINTY
SUBJECT:
WAXMAN LETTER
Please review this draft response to Waxman's letter
to the President regarding the Johnson Amendment to S.171 and
return any comments to Trey Lindseth by 4:00 p.m. today. Many
thanks.
Trey Lindseth
ph. 6531
fx. 2710
7/21/93 09:49
245 4046
EPA/OCLA
4.
001
UNITED STATES.
AGE AGENCY NC
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THIS MESSAGE IS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED
ON A CANNON FAX-730
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
TRANSMISSION NUMBER: (202) 260-4372
VERIFICATION NUMBER: (202) 260-5660
TO:
Trey Lindarth
FROM:
Kate Perry
COMMENTS:
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW:
DATE:
TIME:
MAIL CODE: A-103
ROOM: 803-WT
Printed on Recycled Paper
07/21/93
09:49
245 4046
EPA/OCLA
002
SENT BY:CEQ
; 7-20-93 : 5:44PM ;
CEQ-
202 260 4046:# 3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
July 20, 1993
Dear Congressman Waxman and others:
Thank you for giving me the benefit of your thoughts on the
proposed Johnston Amendment to S. 171, the Department of the
Environment Bill. I apologize for the delay in my response, but
I wanted to explore this issue personally with the appropriate
people on my staff and with the Vice President.
I share your enthusiasm for elevating the Environmental
Protection Agency to cabinet level status. I also believe that
this step will help us to ensure that environmental concerns are
an integral part of decision-making at the highest level of the
Executive Branch.
I also understand your concerns about the proposed Johnston
amendment which would require that comprehensive risk analysis be
performed before any rulemaking is finalized by the new
Department.
The Administration opposes inclusion of the Johnston Amendment in
this legislation. We do not believe that this addition would
help us accomplish the reorganization of environmental functions
that we sqek and therefore urge that neither the House nor the
Conference include it in the Bill. More generally, it is our
intention to oppose any amendments relating to policy or the
substance of EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment. We urge, instead, that the focus of this
legislation be kept on organizational and similar structural
issues rather than on matters of environmental policy as such.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
We do not believe that any specific reference
to or consent on the Johnston Amendment is
BC
possible at this time, as we discussed yesterday
eleviting EPA : to accomplish it expeditiously
suggest discussing the Administration's goals in
given Senete Johnsbis concern. Instead, we
as c matter of structural change, and to do
no with little cost.
OFFICE ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
KATHLEEN A. McGINTY
DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
TO:
Bob Hickmott
FROM:
Katu
DATE:
FAX:
Number of pages including cover: 5
COMMENTS:
Note:
PHONE - (202) 456-6224 FAX - (202) 456-2710
ROOM 360 OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20501
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN PODESTA
BOB HICKMOTT
FROM:
KATIE MCGINTY
SUBJECT:
WAXMAN LETTER
Please review this draft response to Congressman Waxman's
letter to the President regarding the Johnston amendment to S.171
and return any comments to Trey Lindseth by 11:00 a.m. tomorrow,
July 21. Many thanks.
Trey Lindseth
ph. 456-6531
fx. 456-2710
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
July 20, 1993
Dear Congressman Waxman and others:
Thank you for giving me the benefit of your thoughts on the
proposed Johnston Amendment to S. 171, the Department of the
Environment Bill. I apologize for the delay in my response, but
I wanted to explore this issue personally with the appropriate
people on my staff and with the Vice President.
I share your enthusiasm for elevating the Environmental
Protection Agency to cabinet level status. I also believe that
this step will help us to ensure that environmental concerns are
an integral part of decision-making at the highest level of the
Executive Branch.
I also understand your concerns about the proposed Johnston
amendment which would require that comprehensive risk analysis be
performed before any rulemaking is finalized by the new
Department.
The Administration opposes inclusion of the Johnston Amendment in
this legislation. We do not believe that this addition would
help us accomplish the reorganization of environmental functions
that we seek and therefore urge that neither the House nor the
Conference include it in the Bill. More generally, it is our
intention to oppose any amendments relating to policy or the
substance of EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment. We urge, instead, that the focus of this
legislation be kept on organizational and similar structural
issues rather than on matters of environmental policy as such.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
BC
20
Congress of the United States
Bouse of Representatives
Mashington, D.C. 20516
May 20, 1993
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President.
We are writing to convey our deep concerns regarding provisions added on the
Senate floor to S. 171. the bill to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet
status. In particular. we want to urge that you firmly and clearly oppose the Johnston
amendment which could undermine EPA's regulatory efforts.
cabinet status, and the American public would benefit from greater EPA participation
Certainly, the Agency's vitally important mission and its broad range of mandates merits in
We strongly support transforming EPA into a cabinet agency.
deliberations at the highest levels of government.
It is not our view, however, that this is an objective which should be pursued at any
price - especially not at the price of reducing EPA's effectiveness.
Unfortunately. this is the choice presented by the cabinet bill approved by the
Senate earlier this month. Amendments added to this bill on the Senate floor impose
insidious and burdensome new mandates designed to undermine the new Department's
efforts to protect our nation's health and environment.
EPA must undertake an extensive cost/benefit analysis. and a broad comparison of the risks
In particular. the Johnston Amendment directs that as part of any final regulation
addressed by any new regulation with all other risks to which the public is exposed. This
comparison is presumably to consider all forms of risks, including those wholly unrelated to
the environment and EPA's mission. such as dietary risks. car accidents. and smoking.
We strongly oppose this new mandate. Time and again. Congress has concluded that
devoting scarce federal resources to this type of analysis is not a sensible way to make public
policy. Legislation we have adopted has provided more concrete guidance to assure such that
public health and the environment are protected. Our major environmental laws. as
the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. use a mixture of health-based standards,
each case, these are carefully considered judgments which Congress designed to fit the
technology-based standards, and standards based on economic and technical practicality. In
specifics of the problems in question.
We are adamantly opposed to throwing over the regime of existing health and
environmental protection measures - not just in these statutes. but in all the statutes within
EPA's jurisdiction - for the one-size-fits-all solution in the Johnston Amendment.
Cost/benefit analysis is not the precise science that the Johnston amendment
presumes. In fact. it is an exercise where the results of ten depend on the assumptions that
are put into the calculations.
This is so because fundamental questions remain unanswered concerning how the
benefits of environmental and health protection initiatives should be quantified. For
example, how much. in dollars and cents. is it worth to prevent one child from being lead
poisoned? What is the price that we put on one life saved. one birth defect avoided. or one
case where control of a toxic chemical has avoided permanent neurological damage? What is
the value of a life made more enjoyable by virtue of cleaner skies and less polluted air and
water? How many dollars is it worth if we are able to save a polluted river or prevent the
ecosystem destruction and skin cancers expected to accompany depletion of the stratospheric
ozone layer?
Such imponderable questions must be answered in dollars and cents under the
regime imposed by the Johnston Amendment. When we look at the range of costs and
benefits estimates which could be cited in support of a given result, it seems clear that in the
end the result of any such cost/benefit exercise will be arbitrary - essentially depending on
the biases of whoever is conducting the analysis.
We therefore urge that you convey to the Congress your opposition to the Johnston
amendment. It is important that this message is received in the very near future, so that we
can be assured of your position on this vital issue prior to consideration of the cabinet bill in
the House.
While we do favor EPA's elevation to cabinet status, we would not be able to
support legislation that achieves that goal while sacrificing important health and
environmental protection gains we have achieved for the American public through years of
hard-fought battles here in Congress.
We look forward to working with you on this very important matter.
Sincerely,
George GEORGE MILLER Milhs
HENRY A. WAXMAN
Chairman. Subcommittee on
Chairman. Committee on
Health and the Environment
am Natural Resources
NORMAN Y. MINETA
CRRTE. STUDDS
Chairman. Committee on
Chairman. Committee on
Public Works and Transportation
Merchant Marine and Fisheries
GEORGE E JR.
Chairman. Committee on
Science, Space and Technology
TOTAL PAGE. 003
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 20, 1993
l
KATIE PS
MEMORANDUM FOR JACK QUINN
TRACY THORNTON
FROM:
KATIE MCGINTY
SUBJECT:
WAXMAN LETTER
suce
Please review this draft response to Waxman's letter
to the President regarding the Johnson Amendment to S.171 and
return any comments to Trey Lindseth by 4:00 p.m. today. Many
thanks.
this
Trey Lindseth
ph. 6531
fx. 2710
of Briter
WA? (Land folents
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Johnston
July 20, 1993
Dear Congressman Waxman and others:
Siving me the benefit of
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on the
proposed Johnson Amendment to S. 171, the Department of the
Environment Bill. It was good to hear from you, and I apologize
for the delay in my response, but it has been, as you know, & busy few
weeks
As you know, I am committed to the preservation of our nation's
and I
environment I share your enthusiasm for elevating the
Environmental Protection Agency to cabinet level status. I also
wanted
believe that the new Department of the Environment will ensure
to
that environmental concerns are an integral part of decision-
this
making at the highest level of the federal government
explore
also
would
Executive Brench
to
step
this
will
I (understand your concerns about the proposed Johnson amendment,
issue
help
which will require that a cost benefit analysis be performed
before any final rulemaking is issued by the new Department.
personally
us
to
Please be assured that this Administration opposed sy the Johnson
The
with
the
Amendment on the Senate floor and will continue to oppose it in
the House and in Conference It is our view that while this
appropriate
Administration can accept the organization or operation of the
Department, we will continue to oppose any amendments relating to
people
policy or the substance of EPA's mission to protect human health
-
and the environment. We vige instead, that the feeul of this
legislation be kept on arganizational and similar structural
my
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. issues rather
staff
than on
and
Sincerely,
matters of
win
environment
comparative
the Vice
policy
risk
Ls
Cresident.
BC
finalizal
Svch.
reorganization that
the of environmental Lml therefore vign non (inclusion amendment of the in Johnsten do this not
we that seel neither the include House
legiclation We
the Engenence Bill.
believe that this addition
it in Mon n generally,
would help m accomptic
it is intentin our
Congress of the United States
Mashington, DC 20515
July 16, 1993
Mr. Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty
Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. McLarty:
As you know, the Administration has proposed to abolish the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and to transfer its functions
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and
other legislation to a new cabinet level Department on Environ-
mental Protection based on the present Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Legislation to accomplish this objective has
passed the Senate in the form of S. 171, the Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection Act of 1993.
In the House, action on an EPA cabinet bill is scheduled in the
Committee on Government Operations but neither the CEQ provision
passed by the Senate, nor any alternative to it, has yet been
considered. Pending legislative action by the Congress, the CEQ,
which is a permanent agency, would continue but it will obviously
require funding to carry out its statutory responsibilities.
The Administration has not requested an appropriation for the CEQ
for Fiscal Year 1994. As indicated in the enclosed letters to
Subcommittee Chairman Stokes of the House Committee on Appropria-
tions and to Vice President Gore, we are concerned that such lack
of funding may leave the requirements of NEPA and other applica-
ble provisions of law in a highly uncertain status.
In the enclosed June 8, 1993, colloquy on the House Floor, Chair-
man Stokes indicated that pursuant to an Administration request,
funds were included in the Treasury, Postal Service Appropria-
tions bill, H.R. 2403, for a new White House Office of Environ-
mental Policy, which is not a statutory office but is supported
by the Office of Policy Development. He suggests that the new
office might carry out some of the functions now conducted by the
Council. However, such a legislative directive is not and should
not be a part of the appropriations bill. Those functions remain
a statutory responsibility of the CEQ until the Congress enacts
legislation to abolish it and transfers its NEPA functions.
Mr. Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty
July 16, 1993
Page Two
Although the Government Operations Committee may report an EPA
cabinet bill next week, it is also likely that full House action
and a conference with the Senate will not be completed until this
fall, after Fiscal Year 1994 begins. While we reluctantly sup-
port abolishment of the CEQ as a cost. saving measure, we have
developed an alternative draft for retaining the NEPA functions
in the Executive Office of the President, with authority to
transfer some of those functions to the new department, and have
provided it to the Vice President.
We are sure you agree that funding for the CEQ must be provided
for Fiscal Year 1994 pending resolution of these legislative is-
sues. Your cooperation in working with us and the House and Sen-
ate Appropriations Committees to ensure such funding and compli-
ance with the law will be appreciated. Please advise the Appro-
priations Committees and us of the amounts needed for this pur-
pose. Once legislation is enacted, provision can be made for a
transfer of those funds as appropriate.
We are providing a copy of this letter to Chairman Stokes and
Chairwoman Mikulski so they are aware of our concerns and in
order to work with them in funding the CEQ.
with kind regards.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell
Chairman
Gerry apr E. Studds
Chairman
Committee on Energy
Committee on Merchant
and Commerce
Marine and Fisheries
Enclosures
CC: The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
Vice President of the United States
The Honorable Louis Stokes, Chairman
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
House Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Senate Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Leon Panetta, Director
Office of Management and Budget
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
STAFF DIRECTOR
JEFFREY R PIKE
GERRY 1. STUDDS. MASSACHUSETTS, CHAIRMAN
CHIEF COUNSEL
WILLIAM W STELLE JR.
WILLIAM J HUGHES. NEW JERSEY
JACK FIELDS. TEXAS
EARL HUTTO FLORIDA
DON YOUNG ALASKA
WJ (BILLY) TAUZIN LOUISIANA
HERBERT H BATEMAN VIRGINIA
MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR
WILLIAM o LIPINSKI ILLINOIS
JIM SAXTON NEW JERSEY
U.S. house of Representatives
MARRY F BURROUGHS
SOLOMON , ORTIZ. TEXAS
HOWARD COBLE. NORTH CAROLINA
MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
THOMAS J MANTON NEW YORK
CURT WELDON PENNSYLVANIA
Committee on
CYNTHIA M WILKINSON
OWEN B. PICKETT VIRGINIA
JAMES M. INHOFE. OKLAHOMA
GEORGE 1 HOCHBRUECKNER NEW YORK
ARTHUR RAVENEL JR., SOUTH CAROLINA
FRANK PALLONE. JR. NEW JERSEY
WAYNE T GILCHREST. MARYLAND
Merchant Marine and Fisheries
GREG LAUGHLIN TEXAS
RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM. CALIFORNIA
JOLENE UNSOELD WASHINGTON
JACK KINGSTON GEORGIA
GENE TAYLOR MISSISSIPPI
TILLIE K FOWLER. FLORIDA
Room 1334, Longworth house Office Building
JACK REED AMODE ISLAND
MICHAEL N CASTLE DELAWARE
H MARTIN LANCASTER NORTH CAROLINA
PETER T KING. NEW YORK
TROMAS M ANDREWS MAINE
LINCOLN AZ-BALART FLORIDA
Mashington, DC 20515-6230
ELIZABETH FURSE OREGON
RICHARD W POMBO. CALIFORNIA
LYNN SCHENK CALIFORNIA
GENE GREEN TEXAS
ALCEE L HASTINGS. FLORIDA
DAN HAMBURG. CALIFORNIA
BLANCHE M LAMBERT. ARKANSAS
ANNA G ESHOO. CALIFORNIA
THOMAS J BARLOW. HI. KENTUCKY
BART STUPAK. MICHIGAN
May 25, 1993
BENNIE G. THOMPSON. MISSISSIPPI
MARIA CANTWELL WASHINGTON
PETER DEUTSCH, FLORIDA
GARY L ACKERMAN. NEW YORK
The Honorable Louis Stokes
Chairman
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies
H-143, The Capitol
Washington, D. c; 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you know, the Administration proposes to abolish the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and transfer functions to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Council is the
institution that oversees implementation of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by federal agencies and is
critical to the continued administration of one of our most
important environmental laws. Because CEQ was established by law
as Title II of NEPA, this abolition will require appropriate
legislation.
Such legislation, although not yet introduced in the House, is
likely to be considered when our colleague John Conyers brings an
EPA cabinet bill to the floor. As Chairman of the Committee with
jurisdiction over these matters, I have been working on crafting
a bill, in cooperation with Representative John Dingell who is
the author in the House of NEPA and CEQ, and today we are sending
a draft proposal to the Administration for review and comment.
Representative Dingell and I have developed an alternative to the
procedure contained in S. 171, the Senate EPA cabinet bill,
which would abolish the CEQ, retain the NEPA functions in the
Executive Office of the President, but allow the transfer of some
functions to EPA. This approach is favored by most environmental
organizations but will require negotiations with the Administra-
tion.
John Dingell and I are concerned that your Committee may not
include funds for the CEQ in the HUD appropriations bill for FY
1994, the result of which would be effectively to abolish this
The Honorable Louis Stokes
May 25, 1993
Page Two
important body without a clear replacement institution to imple-
ment NEPA. We and the environmental community do not favor such
a back door approach to this problem.
We thus urge you to include funds for the CEQ, pending legisla-
tive resolution of this matter. With full appreciation for the
budgetary constraints under which you are working, we are asking
for an appropriation of only $1.249 million for CEQ to concen-
trate its work in FY 1994 on NEPA-specific functions. This
represents over a 50% reduction from the FY 1993 appropriation of
$2.560 million and is no more than a bare bones budget for the
Council in the event that we are unable to resolve the issue of
its replacement.
We assure you that it is our intent to settle this matter very
promptly and we also want to work closely with you in this
regard.
With kind regards.
Sincerely,
Gerry an E. Studds
Chairman
cc: The Honorable John Dingell
H4096
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
June 28, 1993
Ohio, chairman of the va. HUD. and
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
CEQ oversees the implementation of
Independent Agencies Subcommittee,
say that the appropriations sub-
the National Environmental Policy Act
to engage in a colloquy.
committees this year appear to be
[NEPA] by Federal agencies. It. or
Mr. STOKES. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if
headed in the right direction by scruti-
some successor institution. must con-
the gentleman will yield. I will be
nizing projects and spending more
tinue to administer NEPA, one of this
happy to engage in a colloquy with the
closely than they have in the past.
Nation's most important environ-
gentlemen from Florida.
However, there are still some improve-
mental laws.
Mr. DEUTSCH Mr. Chairman, I
ments that can be made.
I believe that none of us want to see
would like to bring to the attention of
For instance. this bill contains $4.223
the Council abolished without a suit-
all the Members here today the impor-
billion for community development
able replacement to implement NEPA.
tance of the Florida Keys National Ma-
block grants. That is up $223 million
Terminating the Council will require
rine Sanctuary.
from fiscal year 1993.
appropriate legislation. which is likely
Congress, too, recognized the impor-
When the President brought his stim-
to be considered when this House takes
tance of this area in 1999 by enacting
ulus package to the floor, we had a lot
up the EPA-Cabinet bill.
the Florida Keys National Marine
of money in there for community de-
The father of NEPA and CEQ here in
Sanctuary Act. This sanctuary is one
velopment block grant programs. We
the House, our esteemed colleague.
of the largest marine-protected areas
are going to be spending this extra $223
JOHN DINGELL, and I have been working
in the United States, and undoubtedly,
on a proposal for a responsible replace-
million on some of those programs.
the most heavily used and threatened.
ment for CEQ and the transfer of some
Some of those programs included
It also protects America's most valu-
NEPA functions to the new Environ-
such things as a golf course. a beach
able marine ecosystem.
mental Protection Department. I be-
parking garage at $5 million. a cerne-
Mr. STOKES. It sounds as though the
lieve that we will be able to reach an
tery. historic preservation of a movie
Florida Bay is extremely important to
agreement that is satisfactory to the
theater at $3.5 million. gym replace-
water quality in this area.
administration, the Congress, the envi-
ment at $4.5 million. swimming pool
Mr. DEUTSCH Yes, it ia. Water qual-
ronmental community. and others.
renovation at $3.22 million. and so
ity was the driving concern which
Mr. Chairman. there remains the pos-
forth
caused Congress to expeditiously des-
sibility that the EPA-Cabinet bill or
So, I believe there is a need for com-
ignate the waters around the Florida
the CEQ legislation will not be enacted
munity development block grant
Keys, including the only living coral
by the end of this fiscal year. In that
money. But to increase it at a time
reef in North America, as a marine
event. CEQ will need to be continued
when we are having these severe fiscal
sanctuary in 1990.
into fiscal year 1994 to carry out essen-
problems is highly questionable. No. 1.
Over the past 2 years, a detailed re-
tial NEPA-related work.
and, No. 2. I question where this money
search and monitoring plan has been
I note that your bill, in conformance
developed with the participation of
is going to be spent and for what it is
with the request of the administration.
State and local governments. The high-
going to be spent.
does not include an appropriation for
In addition to that. I will be propos-
est priority identified in this plan is
the Council. Is my understanding cor-
the crisis in Florida Bay. The water
ing an amendment that deals with the
rect?
policy development and research at
Mr. STOKES. That is correct.
quality problems of the Florida Keys
HUD. They are going to be requesting
Mr. STUDDS. It was expected that
National Marine Sanctuary have geo-
graphic dimensions far greater than
$25 million more than in fiscal year
the CEQ matter and the NEPA-related
the 3,000-square-mile area within the
1993. That is $50 million more than
responsibilities would be completed by
boundaries of the sanctuary itself.
President Clinton has asked for. In ad-
now. Unfortunately. these issues are
dition to that, there is a real problem.
not resolved.
Further funding is necessary for the
plan to begin scientific research and
because the spending in this area is
Therefore, Mr. Chairman. I would
monitoring to guide and evaluate cor-
going to be changed and it is going to
like your assurance that. pending the
rective actions that are moving ahead
be distributed at the Secretary of
enactment of a bill to replace CEQ. you
HUD's discretion. Do any of my col-
will work with the other body in con-
with the cooperation of many agencies.
leagues remember the HUD scandal
ference to address this matter and to
The Federal Government is not being
asked to pay the entire cost of the
that we had before?
support the Council for 1 more year
needed actions, as the State of Florida
There should be congressional over-
until this issue can be worked out with
and local governments are jointly in-
sight of these spending programs, and
all parties concerned.
volved.
we should not have a alush fund once
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I want
It would seem to me that in order to
again created at HUD. It appears as
to assure the gentleman from Massa-
fulfill our commitment to protecting
though that is what we are talking
chusetta, the chairman of the authoriz-
this most valuable national resource,
about doing.
ing committee that has jurisdiction
we must emphasize the need to fully
So I would just like to say to my col-
over NEPA and CEQ. that I recognize
league, I will have two amendments
the importance of the Council for the
support the water quality protection
program now developed fer the marine
dealing with these two areas, and I
implementation of NEPA.
hope Members will look with favor
It is my understanding that. in the
sanctuary.
I would ask my colleague for his as-
upon both of them.
Treasury-Postal Service appropriations
surance that, should additional funds
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman. I yield
bill passed in the House recently. funds
for this project be provided later in the
2½ minutes to the distinguished gen-
were provided for the new Office of En-
tleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
vironmental Policy. This new entity
process, he will do everything he can to
provide these funds.
STUDDS).
was, in part, created to carry out some
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, the gen-
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I would
of the activities now conducted by the
tleman from Florida has my assurance
like to engage the chairman of the sub-
Council on Environmental Quality.
that I will make every effort to provide
committee in a colloquy about the
The gentleman has my assurance
Council on Environmental Quality
that, if a legislative resolution of this
additional funds for this purpose and to
review this issue during conference
[CEQ].
matter has not been found by the time
with the other body.
Mr. STOKES. If the gentleman will
this bill goes to conference with the
yield, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy
other body. and the issue of the roles of
1310
to engage in a callaquy with the gen-
the Office of Environmental Policy and
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chair-
tleman from Massachusetts.
CEQ have been resolved-including
man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-
STUDUS. As you know, the ad-
funding and staffing issues, I will make
tleman from Indiana [Mr. BURTON].
ministration has proposed to abolish
every effort to support CEQ at the time
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chair-
CEQ and transfer many of its functions
of conference. I would hope that I
man. I thank the gentleman for yield-
to a new Department of Environmental
might get the gentleman's assurance
Protection.
too that be will do what he can to set-
ing.
June 28, 1993
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
H4097
tle this matter legislatively as soon as
have had the kind of support we had
ment of our space program and bring-
possible.
during the authorizing process. Indeed.
ing us a model of management that
Mr. STUDDS. The gentleman from
I think the contribution he has made
will make the space program run more
Ohio has my assurance that Chairman
to this appropriations process is very
efficiently. And we will be able to get
DINGELL and I will make every effort to
important. I want the Members to
the biggest bang for the buck.
resolve the CEQ issue well before this
know that, and I want to express my
But the space station funding in this
appropriations bill is in conference. I
appreciation for that.
bill represents more than $4 billion Γe-
thank the chairman of the subcommit-
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chair-
duction over the next 5 years. That is
tee for his time and for his expression
man, I certainly am grateful to the
at least a 25-percent savings. The an-
of support for CEQ.
gentleman for his expression. Of
nual cost of operating the station. once
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chair-
course. since he participated in these
it has been in orbit, has been cut in
man. I yield such time as he may
activities, he knows how hard we
half from $2 billion to about $1 billion.
consume to the gentleman from Ne-
worked. He also knows how much I ap-
We can have a real space station and
braska [Mr. BEREUTER].
preciate the contribution that he has
contribute to deficit reduction at the
made to getting a better understanding
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was
same time.
of these programs and helping to sup-
given permission to revise and extend
As a result of the redesign process.
port them.
his remarks.)
NASA plans to make major manage-
I thank the gentleman for yielding
ment restructuring. which they esti-
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman. I
time to me.
mate will save $300 million a year. The
rise in strong support of this appropria-
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chair-
Vest Committee believes savings from
tion legislation.
man. I yield such time as he may
management changes alone can add up
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support, in
consume to my colleague. the gen-
to anywhere between $700 million to $1
general, of H.R. 2491-the important excep-
tleman from Texas (Mr. DELAY].
billion per year for NASA overall.
tion being the proposed funding for the space
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
NASA, with a budget at seven-tenths
station.
the gentleman for yielding time to me.
of 1 percent of the Federal total, gen-
This Member would also like to direct com-
Let me just start out by associating
erates about $7 in return for every dol-
mendations to the distinguished gentleman
myself with what the gentleman from
California [Mr. LEWIS]. has said about
lar invested by the Government. Dol-
from Ohio (Mr. STOKES), the chairman of the
the chairman of the Committee on
lars return in jobs, reinvestment in
subcommittee, and the distinguished gen-
tieman from California [Mr. LEWIS], the ranking
Science, Space, and Technology. and
communities, and spin-off tech-
member of the subcommittee for their excep-
along with that my congratulations to
nologies.
tional work in bringing this bill to the floor.
the chairman of this committee on his
Nationally, 75,000 people in 40 States
Mr. Chairman, the 1994 VA/HUD/Independ-
maiden voyage as chairman of this sub-
are employed in space station-related
ent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year
committee. I have thoroughly enjoyed
jobs. At a time of cutbacks in defense
1994 includes funding in the amount of
serving with him.
spending and a weak airline industry.
I must say that the chairman is very
we cannot afford to deal yet another
$257,320,000 for Indian housing new con-
much a breath of fresh air when it
blow to the aerospace industry.
struction. That amount is the level requested
comes to NASA.
The space station is absolutely vital
by the administration and is the same amount
The gentleman from Ohio, Chairman
if human beings are to learn to live and
as last year's appropriation.
Balancing the great need for new housing in
STOKES. has been very open and honest
work in space 60 that we return perma-
with those of us that support the space
nently to the Moon and go to Mars and
Indian country with the imperative facing us to
reduce our budget deficit, a freeze at last
program in this country and has been
explore outer space. We need the sta-
very cooperative. Our ranking member,
tion to study the effects on the human
year's funding level is entirely appropriate and
the gentleman from California [Mr.
body of long-term exposure to the rig-
the members of the committee should be com-
mended for funding this program at this level.
LEWIS] has done a yoeman's job in sup-
ors of space and a gravity-free environ-
This Member also supports the appropriations
porting NASA. And. of course, the gen-
ment.
tleman from California. Chairman
Americans have always been pio-
level for the Community Development Block
Grant Program, which is among the most of-
BROWN and the gentleman from Penn-
neers. With the space station, we can
fective and important to the Nation's munici-
sylvania [Mr. WALKER] have been just
explore the most challenging frontier
palities of all sizes,
fantastic.
of all.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this Member com-
All four of these gentlemen under-
But as important as all this, space
mends the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
stand how important to this country a
exploration has long served as an inspi-
[Mr. STOKES], the chairman of the subcommit-
space program is, how important it is
ration to our children. At a time when
tee, and the distinguished gentleman from
to our young people, how important it
interest in math and science are wan-
California [Mr. LEWIS], the ranking member of
is to our technology race in the world,
ing. the exciting conquest of space has
the subcommittee for their continued support
and how important it is in developing
inspired many engineers and scientists.
new products and new services that
We cannot afford not to be in space and
of this important project.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2
create jobs in this country.
developing a space program in this
minutes to the distinguished gen-
The President has recognized the im-
country.
tleman from California [Mr. BROWN).
portance of investing in our future
I appreciate our subcommittee and
through the space station program. He
our full committee for supporting the
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
has also recognized the wisdom of se-
space station and supporting NASA
tend his remarks.)
lecting an option that preserves as
programs.
much of the current space station Free-
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman. I re-
1420
dom design as possible, building upon
serve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chair-
the investment we have already made
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
toward the goals of permanent human
man, I yield 2 minutes to the gen-
from California [Mr. BROWN], and I do
presence in space and full scientific ca-
tleman from Florida [Mr. MICA].
80 by expressing my deep appreciation
pability in the orbiting laboratory.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman. I rise in op-
to my colleague from California for his
Through the space station redesign
position today to this legislation. Most
leadership on the authorizing commit-
process, billions of dollars have been
specifically. I rise in opposition to the
tee.
targeted as savings. This is one Mem-
expenditure of $1.4 billion to the EPA's
I must say to the gentleman from
ber that criticized the redesign process,
Superfund.
California [Mr. BROWN], if he had not
when it was started by the President,
I serve as a member of the Commit-
gone through the extended process,
but I must admit here and now that I
tee on Government Operations. As a
holding separate hearings, inviting
was wrong. The redesign process has
new member. I have been appalled by
Members not on the committee in to
done some excellent work, particularly
the amount of waste, fraud, abuse, and
hear expert testimony. we would not
in the area of redesigning the manage-
lack of oversight of EPA.
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
JOHN D. DINGELL MICHIGAN, CHAIRMAN
HENRY A WAXMAN. CALIFORNIA
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD CALIFORNIA
PHILIP R SHARP INDIANA
THOMAS J. BLILEY. JR. VIRGINIA
H.S. House of Representatives
EDWARD J. MARKEY MASSACHUSETTS
JACK FIELDS. TEXAS
AL SWIFT. WASHINGTON
MICHAEL G. OXLEY. OHIO
CARDISS COLLINS. ILLINOIS
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS. FLORIDA
Committee on Energy and Commerce
MIKE SYNAR. OKLAHOMA
DAN SCHAEFER COLORADO
W J. BILLY TAUZIN. LOUISIANA
JOE BARTON. TEXAS
RON WYDEN. OREGON
ALEX McMILLAN, NORTH CAROLINA
Room 2125, Rapburn House Office Building
RALPH M HALL. TEXAS
J. DENNIS HASTERT, ILLINOIS
BILL RICHARDSON NEW MEXICO
FRED UPTON. MICHIGAN
CLIFF STEARNS. FLORIDA
Hashington, DC 20515-6115
JIM SLATTERY KANSAS
JOHN BRYANT. TEXAS
BILL PAXON NEW YORK
RICK BOUCHER. VIRGINIA
PAUL E. GILLMOR OHIO
JIM COOPER. TENNESSEE
SCOTT KLUG. WISCONSIN
J. ROY ROWLAND. GEORGIA
GARY A. FRANKS. CONNECTICUT
THOMAS J. MANTON. NEW YORK
JAMES C. GREENWOOD PENNSYLVANIA
EDOLPHUS TOWNS. NEW YORK
MICHAEL D. CRAPO. IDAHO
GERRY E. STUDDS. MASSACHUSETTS
June 17, 1993
RICHARD H LEHMAN. CALIFORNIA
FRANK PALLONE. JR. NEW JERSEY
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON. TEXAS
LYNN SCHENK. CALIFORNIA
SHERROD BROWN. OHIO
MIKE KREIDLER. WASHINGTON
MARJORIE MARGOLIES.MEZVINSKY. PENNSYLVANIA
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT. ARKANSAS
ALAN J. ROTH. STAFF DIRECTOR AND CHIEF COUNSEL
DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS. DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Mr. Vice President:
Enclosed is a letter I received from two former Senate staff
members who were counsels to the then Senate Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs when the late Senator Scoop Jackson
was Chairman. Their letter expresses deep concern about the
Administration's proposal regarding the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969. Also enclosed is my response in which I indicate a desire
to work together with Chairman Gerry Studds and the
Administration to resolve this matter.
With every good wish
Sincerely,
JOHN D. DINGELL
CHAIRMAN
CC: The Honorable Gerry Studds, Chairman
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
The Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
JOHN D DINGELL MICHIGAN CHAIRMAN
HENRY A WAXMAN CALIFORNIA
CARLOS J MOORHEAD CALIFORNIA
PHIL.P a SHARP INDIANA
THOMAS J. BL.LEY JR. VIRGINIA
EDWARD J MARKEY MASSACHUSETTS
JACK FIELDS. TEXAS
H.S. House of Representatives
AL SWIFT WASHINGTON
MICHAEL G OXLEY. OHIO
CARDISS COLLINS ILLINOIS
MICHAEL BIL:RAKIS FLORIDA
MIKE SYNAR. OKLAHOMA
DAN SCHAEFER COLORADO
Committee on Energy and Commerce
WJ BILLY TAUZIN LOUISIANA
JOE BARTON TEXAS
RON WYDEN OREGON
ALEX MCMILLAN NORTH CAROLINA
Room 2125, Rapburn house Office Building
RALPH M HALL. TEXAS
J. DENNIS MASTERT ILLINOIS
BILL RICHARDSON NEW MEXICO
FRED UPTON. MICHIGAN
JIM SLATTERY KANSAS
CLIFF STEARNS FLORIDA
ashington, DC 20513-6115
JOHN BRYANT. TEXAS
BILL PAXON. NEW YORK
RICK BOUCHER. VIRGINIA
PAUL L GILLMOR. OHIO
IM COOPER. TENNESSEE
SCOTT KLUG. WISCONSIN
J. ROY ROWLAND. GEORGIA
GARY A. FRANKS. CONNECTICUT
THOMAS J MANTON. NEW YORK
JAMES C. GREENWOOD. PENNSYLVANIA
EDOLPHUS TOWNS. NEW YORK
MICHAEL D. CRAPO. IDAHO
GERRY E STUDDS. MASSACHUSETTS
June 17, 1993
RICHARD M. LEHMAN. CALIFORNIA
FRANK PALLONE JR. NEW JERSEY
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON. TEXAS
LYNN SCHENK. CALIFORNIA
SHERROD BROWN. OHIO
MIKE KREIDLER. WASHINGTON
MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY. PENNSYLVANIA
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, ARKANSAS
ALAN J. ROTH. STAFF DIRECTOR AND CHIEF COUNSEL
DENNIS B. FITZGISSONS. DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. William J. Van Ness
Mr. Grenville Garside
Van Ness, Feldman and Curtis
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Seventh Floor
Washington, D.C. 20007
Dear Bill and Gren:
I appreciate and welcome your timely letter reminding me of
the historic development and enactment of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. I am saddened, however,
to be reminded that the other NEPA leaders, "Scoop" Jackson, Ed
Muskie, and Mo Udall, are no longer here to also remind everyone
of the significance, importance, and effectiveness of NEPA.
I share your obvious concern and frustration, as does the
Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
Representative Gerry Studds, about the Administration's proposals
regarding NEPA. Enclosed is Chairman Studds' letter to the House
Committee on Appropriations regarding funding for the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) pending a legislative solution.
We want to work closely with the Clinton Administration on
this matter. In fact, we recently shared with Vice President
Gore and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator
Browner an alternative legislative proposal that would retain the
important NEPA functions in the Executive Office of the
President. While I can reluctantly support termination of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the ending of CEQ's
annual report, I cannot support a transfer of the CEQ's statutory
functions to an agency to which NEPA applies, directly or
indirectly, regardless of whether that agency is a cabinet-level
department. Folding NEPA into any of these agencies, such as
proposed in the Senate-passed EPA Cabinet bill, S. 171, would
diminish "the NEPA importance" that you so succinctly describe.
Mr. William J. Van Ness
Mr. Grenville Garside
Page 2
I believe that most environmental groups share the views you
express. It is my hope that we can convince the Administration
that either CEQ not be abolished at all or that the approach we
suggest or one very similar to it should be adopted separately or
as part of an EPA cabinet bill.
Again thank you for your helpful comments. I welcome any
further suggestions you may have toward achieving our goal of
keeping the NEPA institution created by Congress in 1969 alive
and unencumbered. I have taken the liberty of sharing your
letter with Chairman Studds and Vice President Gore.
With every good wish.
Can JOHN D. DINGELL
Sincerely,
CHAIRMAN
CC:
The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
The Honorable Thomas S. Foley, Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Richard A. Gephardt, Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable David E. Bonior, Minority Whip
U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Gerry Studds, Chairman
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
The Honorable Louis Stokes, Chairman
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
VAN NESS, FELDMAN & CURTIS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1033 JUlios8 THOMAS JEFFERSON STREET. N.W.
SEVENTH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007
ELLEN 5. YOUNG
STEPHEN C. FOTIS
RICHARD A. AGNEW**
MARGARET A. MOORE
JEANNE MARIE GALICICH
ROSS D. AIN
RICHARD A PENNA
PAMELA , ANDERSON
(202) 298 1800
MARY JANE GRAHAM
GARY D. BACHMAN
DANIEL S. PRESS
MIRIAM $. ARONOFF
BENJAMIN L ISRAEL
CHARLES B. CURTIS
JULIA R. RICHARDSON
FACSIMILE
NOREEN TAMA BELLEGARDE
SAM KALEN
PETER O. DICKSON
HOWARD ELIOT SHAPIRO
PAUL C. BLACKBURN
(202) 338-2416
JOSEPH 8. NELSON*
HOWARD J. FELOMAN
LINDA G. STUNTZ
HOWARD BLEICHFELD
BRUCE W. STECKLER*
GRENVILLE GARSIDE
MICHAEL A. SWIGER
SEATTLE OFFICE
JOHN J. BUCHOVECKY
DANIEL J. WHITTLE
D. ERIC HULTMAN
ROBERT G. SZABO
THE NATIONAL BUILDING. SUITE 506
JENNIFER B. CORWIN
THERESA. ZOLET
ALAN L. MINTZ
WILLIAM J. VAN NESS. JR.
1008 WESTERN AVENUE
BRUCE $. DEMING
J. CURTIS MOFFATT
BEN YAMAGATA
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
T. ARAM FASANO*
or COUNSEL
CHERYL M. FEIK*
CYNTHIA INGERSOLL
RESIDENT MEMBER SEATTLE OFFICE
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
*NOT ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
June 9, 1993
The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6115
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Twenty-four years ago a small group of Senators and
Representatives, meeting in Conference Committee in the United
States Capitol, reached agreement on the final text of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This
concluding meeting on the shape, content and policy of NEPA
received scant attention from the media or representatives of
industry, environmental organizations and major Federal agencies.
However, the decisions taken by the participants in this
conference committee were both bold and far-reaching. They drew
upon decades of legislative oversight and experience. They built
upon the experience of the National Security Council and the
Council of Economic Advisors. And finally, they reflected a
hard-earned understanding of what is required to bring mission
oriented agencies into compliance with national policies which
change the thrust of historical agendas.
NEPA has had a profound and lasting effect on Federal policy
over the past quarter of a century. It has opened agency
decision-making to public review and accountability. Through the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), it has institutionalized
concerns about the quality of the human environment in the White
House.
VAN NESS. FELOMAN & CURTIS
2
NEPA and CEQ have shown the strength and resiliency to
survive both public controversy and Presidential neglect. Today,
however, NEPA faces the first real threat to its continued
viability. The Clinton Administration has proposed, and the
environmental community has largely acquiesced in, the
abolishment of the CEQ and the transfer of its responsibilities
for the annual report on the environment and regulatory oversight
of the EIS process to the new Department of Environmental
Protection. With little examination of the far reaching
consequences of this proposed action, the Clinton Administration
now stands close to achieving an objective which other
Administrations hostile to NEPA objectives did not even dare to
propose.
of the four major sponsors of NEPA -- and the best witnesses
of its purpose, intent and performance over the past twenty-five
years -- three no longer serve in the Congress. Senator Jackson
is deceased. Senator Muskie and Congressman Udall are retired.
Mr. Chairman, you alone provide the link, the sole
institutional memory, for making informed judgments about the
purpose of Congress in the late 1960's in enacting NEPA and the
justification for the major changes now proposed. You alone have
first hand knowledge of how Federal decision-making impacted the
environment, before and after NEPA.
We respectfully urge you to bring the critical policy issues
presented out into the open for full public debate and
examination. If the institutional process and the policy
mandated by NEPA are to be fundamentally changed, these changes
should only be made after the same informed Congressional
consideration and debate that put them in place a quarter of a
century ago.
As attorneys who served as legal counsel to the Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee and to Chairman Jackson in the 1960's
and 1970's we were privileged to participate in the hearings, the
analysis, the drafting and the implementation of NEPA. We saw
Congress under your leadership declare and enact an enlightened
and strong policy on the environment long before the environment
became a fashionable and popular cause to champion.
NEPA's importance to the Nation lies in the fact that it
does not focus on attaining any specific environmental goals or
objectives. Instead, NEPA's focus is on disciplining the process
of all Federal decision-making which impacts the environment.
NEPA mandates that all of the relevant facts be placed on the
record. Impacts, both economic and environmental, must be
identified. Alternative courses of action must be considered.
NEPA does not mandate which decision should be made. But NEPA
does mandate that decisions be informed, rational, carefully
considered and made on the record.
VAN NESS, FELOMAN & CURTIS
3
Finally, unlike many other environmental laws NEPA is not
about opposing technology, limiting growth, or fostering
preservation. NEPA is about restoring "balance" in Federal
decisions. As set forth in the Policy Declaration of Section
101 (a) NEPA's purpose is
to foster and promote the general welfare, to
create and maintain conditions under which
man and nature can live in productive
harmony, and fulfill the social, economic,
and other requirements of present and future
generations of Americans.
We are not satisfied that a strong or a compelling case has
been made in support of the changes proposed by the
Administration. We grant that transfer of CEQ function to EPA
will result in some reduction in White House staff positions (and
an offsetting or greater increase at the new Department of the
Environment). It will also give greater discretion -- and less
oversight and accountability to Congress and the public -- in
White House decision-making on environmental issues. And it will
surely reduce the level of responsibility for NEPA implementation
from the highest levels of the White House to an unknown level of
a very large, overtasked bureaucracy in a new Department of
government.
There is no way that this new Department, however well
organized or managed, can successfully oversee the environmental
consequences of decision-making in all other Federal departments
and agencies. Indeed, that was a fundamental reason for enacting
NEPA and creating the CEQ in 1969.
One would have hoped that the new Administration would have
come to office committed to restore and revitalize CEQ with
renewed priority, adequate staff and talented leadership.
Instead, it has proposed the abolition of an institution
conceived by Congress to assure that all Federal agencies address
the environmental consequences of their proposed actions in a
credible manner and in public view.
Mr. Chairman, it is not too late to avert action which we
believe will undermine our nation's most important environmental
statute.
Sincerely,
Bill Ness
William J. Van Ness
Grenville Garside