LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Lands Legacy Initiative", House or Senate or Joint

Document 14 of 118.

View Related Topics

MAY 11, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 1768 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
GEORGE T. FRAMPTON, JR.
ACTING CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

BODY:

Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, distinguished Members of the Committee: I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's Lands Legacy Initiative and related legislation- including S. 25, S. 446, S. 532, S. 819 -- as well as the interaction of the Council on Environmental Quality with agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction -- the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. Forest Service.
Let me turn first to the Lands Legacy Initiative. The overall goal of the President's proposal is to enable this and future generations to protect irreplaceable pieces of our Nation's natural endowment within easy reach of every American through the establishment of a permanent fund. Achieving this goal is one of the President's highest priorities, and the bills pending before this Committee strongly suggest that this aim enjoys broad bipartisan support in this Congress. While it is not my purpose today to either support or oppose any of the bills pending before the Committee, I pledge the Administration's willingness to work diligently and in good faith with you, and with other Senators and Congressmen dedicated to these issues, so that together we may achieve this goal. Legislation for this purpose that can be widely supported and signed by the President would be a truly historic achievement on behalf of the citizens we work for -- an achievement that I believe to be within our grasp.
I would like to begin our work together by outlining the President's Lands Legacy proposal.
Congress enacted the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1964 "to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United States of present and future generations...outdoor recreation resources...by (1) providing funds for and authorizing federal assistance to the states in planning, acquisition and development of needed land and water areas and facilities, and (2) providing funds for the federal acquisition and development of certain lands and other areas." Historically, as you are well aware, our efforts too often have fallen short of these commendable goals.
We believe the time has come to establish a permanent funding mechanism to ensure that Congress' vision is fulfilled, and to adapt this vision to meet new conservation challenges. More specifically, we believe that while there must continue to be a strong federal role in the protection of our natural resources -- particularly resources of national significance that can not be adequately safeguarded at the state or local level -- there is growing need and demand for additional assistance to states, tribes, and communities struggling to preserve local green spaces that grow scarcer every day. These needs range from keeping the urban environment healthy to preserving suburban greenways to saving threatened farmland.
Accordingly, we propose creation of a permanent fund of at least $1 billion a year for the protection of open space and natural resources, with at least half of the funding dedicated to assisting state and local efforts.
We strongly believe that certain natural and historic sites are deserving of -- and are most appropriately safeguarded by -- federal protection. For instance, at the Administration's request, Congress last year appropriated funds for completion of the Appalachian Trail, the Nation's longest footpath, extending from Georgia to Maine. Our priorities for fiscal year 2000 include acquisitions within and around Mojave and Joshua Tree National Parks; forests in Big Sur and Northern Florida; protection of lands along the historic Lewis and Clark Trail and the Pacific Coast Trail; and acquisitions within Civil War battlefields, including Gettysburg and Antietam. It is imperative that we provide a secure foundation for continuing such efforts in the years ahead. However, natural resource protection is not, and cannot be, the exclusive province of the federal government. Many conservation needs are most appropriately addrest the state or local level, both because the resources can be managed without direct federal involvement, and because certain conservation priorities are best set by communities themselves. Each community faces unique conservation challenges, and no one solution can be dictated from Washington. Rather, the federal government can provide funds that can be leveraged by states and local governments, and an array of tools that communities can choose from to meet their particular needs. For instance, outright acquisition is not always the right approach; often, conservation easements, funds to restore existing urban parks, or easements or loans to keep working forests working can more efficiently meet a community's needs.
The President's Lands Legacy proposal provides increased funding for a full complement of programs to assist state, tribal, and local governments in meeting a range of conservation needs: matching grants for acquisition of land or easements; matching grants for open space planning; grants to preserve wildlife habitat and support collaborative efforts to protect endangered species; matching grants and technical assistance to enhance urban forests and restore parks in economically distressed urban communities; matching grants for conservation easements on forests and farmland; and grants for coastal environmental protection, conservation, and restoration.
There is a remarkable degree of common ground between the broad framework of the President's proposal, which I have just outlined, and the legislative proposals before this Committee. Many if not all of the goals I have articulated are addressed in that legislation. I am confident that we can work productively with the Congress to arrive at a formula that fulfills the vision of the President's Lands Legacy Initiative.
I must be clear, however, on certain issues where we have serious concerns. The Administration cannot support legislation that unreasonably restricts the use of funds for federal land acquisition; that does not provide sufficient guidance to ensure that funding is spent in a manner consistent with environmental values and without any risk of environmental harm; or that provides incentives for additional oil and gas drilling in federal offshore waters.
Attached to this testimony is a more detailed set of legislative principles that will guide the Administration as we work with you, as well as an interagency budget cross-cut of the funding requested in the President's 2000 budget to support the Lands Legacy Initiative.
I believe there may be some confusion over the interaction between the President's fiscal year 2000 budget and the Lands Legacy Initiative. We recognize that the pending legislation anticipates establishment of a permanent funding mechanism beginning in fiscal year 2000. That is a goal that we share, and we will work hard to accomplish it before September 30 of this year. However, in preparing the 2000 discretionary budget we needed to recognize the possibility that such legislation will not be completed in that time frame.
The President's budget submission ensures that funding for current and proposed programs for natural resources protection remains available beyond fiscal year 2000 within the context of a balanced discretionary budget, should permanent funding legislation be delayed.

The Budget assumes appropriations funding these programs in fiscal year 2000, and that we will seek permanent funding beginning in fiscal year 2001. As you will see from the cross-cut, that budget would provide increased levels of funding over fiscal year 1999 appropriations in certain key areas.
It is, by its nature, reflective of the agencies' current statutory spending authority. It should not be viewed as an inflexible Administration position on the construction of a permanent funding mechanism, but rather as an outline of those purposes for which we believe funding ultimately should be available on a permanent side of the ledger. Should permanent funding be provided for programs now reflected in the discretionary budget, the proposed increases in funding would no longer would be required in the discretionary budget. Conversely, those programs that do not move to permanent funding would require continued funding at requested levels in the discretionary budget in order to ensure that their important purposes are carried out.
Let me conclude the discussion of Lands Legacy by repeating that the Administration is here to work long and hard with you to build on the considerable common ground we have, and to find a way to do what the public clearly wants us to do -- leave a legacy of financial resources adequate to protect our Nation's natural treasures.
I'd like briefly to address the other issue raised by the Committee's invitation letter -,CEQ's role with respect to agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction. CEQ was created by the Congress in 1969 to advise the President on the long-term direction of environmental policy, to coordinate the environmental work of the federal family, and to oversee implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
CEQ is 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 can ensure that the broadest Set of environmental goals is being advanced.
CEQ also is 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 are fully taken into account. Sound environmental strategy that is based on good science, and is broad-based rather than parochial in scope m this, I believe, was the vision of Congress.
A parallel vision embodied in NEPA is that federal agencies should 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 -- remain cornerstones of the Nation's environmental policy making and of CEQ's work with the agencies, including those within the Committee's jurisdiction.
I would be pleased to answer the any questions the Committee may have.
END

LOAD-DATE: May 12, 1999

Document 14 of 118.


Search Terms: "Lands Legacy Initiative", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: