[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY'S FY 2013 FUNDING
REQUEST AND THE EFFECTS ON NEPA, NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
AND OTHER FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INITIATIVES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-100
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-228 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Paul Tonko, NY
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
PJon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, March 7, 2012......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Sutley, Hon. Nancy, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality,
Co-Chair, National Ocean Council........................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY'S FY 2013
FUNDING REQUEST AND THE EFFECTS ON NEPA, NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY AND
OTHER FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INITIATIVES.''
----------
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Lamborn, Fleming,
Thompson, Rivera, Tipton, Southerland, Flores, Johnson, Markey,
Kildee, Napolitano, Holt, Bordallo, Costa, Sablan, Lujan,
Sarbanes, Hanabusa, and Tonko.
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order and the
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under Rule 3(e)
is two Members. We exceeded that.
The Committee on Natural Resources is meeting today to hear
testimony for an oversight hearing on the Council on
Environmental Quality's Fiscal Year 2013 funding request, and
the effects on NEPA, National Ocean Policy, and other Federal
environmental initiatives. Under our Rule 4(f), opening
statements are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
However, I ask unanimous consent that any Member wishing to
have opening statements included in the record, that they be
submitted to the Clerk of the Committee prior to the close of
business today.
[No response.]
The Chairman. And without objection, so ordered. I will now
recognize myself for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. I want to thank Chairwoman Sutley for coming
to this committee, and I will make the formal introduction in a
moment.
As many Members may know, despite having jurisdiction over
the National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on
Environmental Quality, this committee has not held an oversight
hearing over CEQ's budget for many years.
As the environmental policy arm of the White House, CEQ
provides guidance to all Federal agencies through policy
initiatives and the interpretation of statutes and regulations.
As such, many of the initiatives developed by CEQ affect
agencies and programs within this committee's jurisdiction.
One of these policy initiatives that we have significant
interest in is the National Ocean Policy. This committee has
already held two oversight hearings on the National Ocean
Policy. Unfortunately, we still have many of the same concerns
and questions as we had before the hearings.
While the main purpose of this hearing is to review the
budget request of CEQ, that document does not provide much
detail on how the funding will be used to implement the variety
of environmental issues. I hope this hearing serves as a way to
get more information on how the National Ocean Policy
specifically is being funded.
Along those lines, almost two weeks ago, I sent a letter to
Chair Sutley asking a number of questions and requesting a
number of documents. While I understand some of these requests
will take some time to comply with, I certainly hoped for
answers to the budget-related questions prior to today's
hearing. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
I asked the questions because the National Ocean Policy
appears to be a very large undertaking, one that will require a
lot of resources from a lot of different agencies. Yet no
agency seems to be requesting funding specifically for this
purpose. This implies to me that either nothing is planned for
Fiscal Year 2013 to implement this policy, which I find hard to
believe, or all of these agencies are quietly siphoning money
from other activities to fund this unauthorized activity.
Since it appears many agencies are implementing the policy
despite the fact that the Implementation Plan is still in draft
form, I can only assume agencies are reluctant to tell Congress
how much they are spending and where the money is coming from.
In the letter, I asked a number of specific questions
regarding the funding of the June 2010 workshop held here in
Washington, D.C., and the funding of the Governance
Coordinating Committee, the GCC, a body that has already been
appointed and is apparently holding meetings.
Despite the fact that this whole National Ocean Policy is
supposed to be conducted in a transparent manner, this body has
met in closed session a number of times. I am unaware of any
notice of the meetings being published, and there are no
transcripts or notes available from any of the meetings.
And, despite the National Ocean Policy's intent to reach
inland activities to the uppermost reaches of each watershed
and tributary, there are no inland states represented on the
GCC. This does not bode well for inclusiveness.
The letter also requested the public comment period for the
Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan to be extended
for 90 days. Although CEQ granted only a 30-day extension, this
extension may have been for naught, based on comments we have
reviewed so far, since many of the affected industries feel
that their continued participation in the process is being
ignored. So, I would once again ask for the full 90-day
extension.
We will likely hear today how huge strides have been made
by allowing the Regional Fishery Management Councils to have a
seat on the Regional Planning Bodies. Unfortunately, it is done
in such a tortured manner that it really just gives the
Governor another governmental seat. It is amazing, the steps
being taken, from my point of view, in order to appear to be
transparent, when in fact the Regional Planning Bodies remain
FACA-exempt bodies.
So, I want to thank Chair Sutley for coming here before our
committee today. I look forward to your testimony, and a
continued dialogue, including full answers to the letter that I
referenced earlier about your budget and about the National
Ocean Policy.
And with that, I yield back my time and recognize the
distinguished Ranking Member.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
I want to thank Chairwoman Sutley for coming before this Committee
again.
As many Members may know, despite having jurisdiction over the
National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental
Quality, this Committee has not held an oversight hearing over CEQ's
budget for many years.
As the environmental policy arm of the White House, CEQ provides
guidance to all federal agencies through policy initiatives and the
interpretation of statutes and regulations. As such, many of the
initiatives developed by CEQ affect agencies and programs within this
Committee's jurisdiction. One of these policy initiatives that we have
significant interest in is the National Ocean Policy.
This Committee has already held two oversight hearings on the
National Ocean Policy. Unfortunately, we still have many of the same
concerns and questions after the hearings.
While the main purpose of this hearing is to review the budget
request of CEQ, that document does not provide much detail on how the
funding will be used to implement the variety of environmental
initiatives. I hope this hearing serves as a way to get more
information on how the National Ocean Policy specifically is being
funded.
Along those lines, almost two weeks ago, I sent a letter to Chair
Sutley asking a number of questions and requesting a number of
documents. While I understand some of these requests will take some
time to comply with, I certainly hoped for answers to the budget-
related questions prior to today's hearing. Unfortunately, that was not
the case
I asked the questions because the National Ocean Policy appears to
be a very large undertaking--one that will require a lot of resources
from a lot of different agencies. Yet no agency seems to be requesting
funding specifically for this purpose.
This implies to me that either nothing is planned for FY 2013 to
implement the Policy, or all of these agencies are quietly siphoning
money from other activities to fund this unauthorized activity. Since
it appears many agencies are implementing the Policy despite the fact
that the Implementation Plan is still in draft form, I can only assume
agencies are reluctant to tell Congress how much they are spending and
where the money is coming from.
In the letter, I asked a number of specific questions regarding the
funding of the June 2010 workshop held here in Washington, D.C. and the
funding of the Governance Coordinating Committee (GCC)--a body that has
already been appointed and is apparently holding meetings. Despite the
fact that this whole National Ocean Policy is supposed to be conducted
in a transparent manner, this body has met in closed session a number
of times. I am unaware of any notice of the meetings being published
and there are no transcripts or notes available from any of the
meetings.
And despite the National Ocean Policy's intent to reach inland
activities to the uppermost reaches of each watershed and tributary,
there are no inland states represented on the GCC. This does not bode
well for transparency and inclusiveness.
The letter also requested the public comment period for the Draft
National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan be extended for 90 days.
Although CEQ granted only a 30-day extension, this extension may have
been for naught based on comments we have reviewed so far, since many
of the affected industries feel that their continued participation in
the process is being ignored. I ask again that you provide the
extension for the full 90 days.
We will likely hear today how huge strides have been made by
allowing the Regional Fishery Management Councils to have a seat on the
Regional Planning Bodies. Unfortunately, it's done in such a tortured
manner that it really just gives the Governor another governmental
seat. It's amazing the steps being taken in order to appear to be
transparent when in fact the Regional Planning Bodies remain FACA-
exempt bodies.
I want to thank Chair Sutley for coming before our Committee again
today and I look forward to your testimony and a continuing dialog
including full answers to the letter I referenced earlier, and about
your budget and the National Ocean Policy.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Madame
Chair.
Since its creation 42 years ago, the Council on
Environmental Quality has played an integral role in helping
Presidents of both parties protect America's environment while
growing our economy. As one of those Presidents said, ``The
price of economic growth need not and will not be deterioration
in the quality of our lives and our surroundings.''
I don't often quote Richard Nixon, but he was right in that
instance, and he was right to sign the National Environmental
Policy Act in 1970. In addition to creating CEQ, the National
Environmental Policy Act required that the Federal Government
assess the impact of Federal actions on the environment, and
gave the public an opportunity to participate in the decision-
making process.
Through NEPA, Congress ensured that Federal agencies could
no longer make decisions unilaterally. CEQ serves a critical
function in coordinating actions involving multiple agencies,
and providing uniform guidance and pilot programs to share
cost-reducing and time-saving strategies between agencies. From
protecting the Colorado River drinking water supplies from
pollution coming from uranium mill waste in Moab, Utah, to
anticipating the risk of wildfire to the nuclear research labs
at Los Alamos, NEPA and CEQ have a history of helping to find
solutions to complex environmental challenges.
That history continues today, with CEQ's leadership in the
creation and implementation of the President's National Ocean
Policy. It provides, at long last, a unifying framework to
better coordinate and integrate over 100 different existing
laws, policies, and regulations affecting oceans, coasts, and
the Great Lakes.
Our ocean and coastal areas are a vital part of the U.S.
economy, supporting tens of millions of jobs, and contributing
trillions of dollars annually to our national economy. The
growing utilization of our ocean and coastal areas is placing
significant pressures on these natural resources, and the
National Ocean Policy will help protect, maintain, and restore
our national and coastal resources. CEQ is also helping the
Federal Government save money and reduce pollution by
increasing energy efficiency, and reducing the use of fossil
fuels.
In January 2010, President Obama announced that the Federal
Government would reduce its emissions of global warming
pollution by 28 percent from 2008 levels by 2020. This will
create cumulative savings of $8 billion to $11 billion in
avoided energy costs. CEQ is helping to maximize taxpayers'
dollars into the government's work, and not waste.
In leading the Interagency Climate Change Adaption Task
Force, CEQ is also helping the Federal Government to respond to
and plan for the impacts of climate change. The United States
is also experiencing--is already experiencing climate change,
including more frequent and extreme rainfall, longer wildfire
seasons, reduced snowpack, extreme heat events, increasing
ocean temperatures, and rising sea levels.
Last year showed us the economic consequences of extreme
weather, as we suffered a record 14 weather disasters that
caused $1 billion or more in damage. CEQ's vision of a
resilient, healthy, and prosperous Nation in the face of
changing climate is one we should all share.
A year after President Nixon signed the National
Environmental Policy Act into law, another iconic American
environmental text was published. Dr. Seuss captured the
concerns of the time about ``smogulous'' smoke and water so
smeary. In The Lorax he gave us someone to speak for the trees.
I will take a moment to speak for CEQ.
What will we do if we lose CEQ? Just a moment. I will tell
you. We would find a lonely place that is in a disgrace, where
rivers burn and fish can't swim, where the air is thick and the
sunlight dim. It would be a sad place that time forgot. Unless
someone like you funds CEQ, nothing is going to get better. It
is not.
I urge this committee to support the critical work that CEQ
does to ensure harmony between our environment and our economy.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman, the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Since its creation 42 years ago, CEQ has played an integral role in
helping presidents of both parties protect America's environment while
growing our economy.
As one of those presidents said:
``The price of economic growth need not, and will not be,
deterioration in the quality of our lives and our
surroundings.''
I don't often quote Richard Nixon, but he was right in that
instance. And he was right to sign the National Environmental Policy
Act in 1970.
In addition to creating CEQ, the National Environmental Policy Act
required that the federal government assess the impact of federal
actions on the environment and gave the public an opportunity to
participate in the decision-making process. Through NEPA, Congress
ensured that Federal agencies could no longer make decisions
unilaterally.
CEQ serves a critical function in coordinating actions involving
multiple agencies and providing uniform guidance and pilot programs to
share cost-reducing and time-saving strategies between agencies.
From protecting the Colorado River and drinking water supplies from
pollution coming from uranium mill waste in Moab, Utah to anticipating
the risk of wildfire to the nuclear research labs at Los Alamos, NEPA
and CEQ have a history of helping to find solutions to complex
environmental challenges.
That history continues today with CEQ's leadership in the creation
and implementation of the President's National Ocean Policy. It
provides, at long last, a unifying framework to better coordinate and
integrate over 100 different existing laws, policies, and regulations
affecting the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
Our ocean and coastal areas are a vital part of the U.S. economy,
supporting tens of millions of jobs and contributing trillions of
dollars annually to our national economy. The growing utilization of
our ocean and coastal areas is placing significant pressures on these
natural resources and the National Ocean Policy will help protect,
maintain, and restore our ocean and coastal resources.
CEQ is also helping the Federal government save money and reduce
pollution by increasing energy efficiency and reducing the use of
fossil fuels. In January 2010, President Obama announced that the
Federal government would reduce its emissions of global warming
pollution by 28 percent from 2008 levels by 2020. This will create
cumulative savings of 8 to 11 billion dollars in avoided energy costs.
CEQ is helping maximize taxpayers' dollars into the government's work,
not waste.
In leading the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force,
CEQ is also helping the Federal government respond to and plan for the
impacts of climate change. The United States is already experiencing
climate change including:
more frequent and extreme rainfall,
longer wildfire seasons,
reduced snowpack,
extreme heat events,
increasing ocean temperatures and
rising sea levels.
Last year showed us the economic consequences of extreme weather as
we suffered a record 14 weather disasters that caused 1 billion dollars
or more in damage. CEQ's vision of a ``resilient, healthy and
prosperous Nation in the face of a changing climate'' is one we should
all share.
A year after President Nixon signed the National Environmental
Policy Act into law, another iconic American environmental text was
published.
Dr. Seuss captured the concerns of the time about ``smogulous
smoke'' and ``water so smeary''. In the Lorax, he gave us someone to
speak for the trees. Now, I will take a moment to speak for CEQ.
What will we do if we lose CEQ?
Just listen a moment, I will tell you.
We'd find a lonely place, that's in a disgrace.
Where rivers burn and fish can't swim,
Where the air is thick and the sunlight dim,
It would be a sad place that time forgot!
Unless someone like YOU funds CEQ,
Nothing is going to get better. It's not.
I urge this Committee to support the critical work that CEQ does to
ensure harmony between our environment and our economy.
______
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his statement. And
of course, the big news there is your adoration of President
Nixon.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Which I know is a stretch, in fairness.
We only have one witness here today, the Chairwoman of the
Council on Environmental Quality. And Chairwoman Sutley, thank
you very much for being here again.
Just to review the timing lights, your full statement will
appear in the record. And when the green light comes on, it
means you are doing well. When the yellow light comes on, it
means you have 30 seconds. And the red light, of course, is
your time has expired. So I would like to keep your timing to
that, if you could, so we can have as much interaction with the
Members as possible.
With that, I recognize you now for five minutes, and thank
you very much for being here.
STATEMENT OF NANCY SUTLEY, CHAIRWOMAN,
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Markey,
and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for the
Council on Environmental Quality.
As the President outlined in his Blueprint for an America
Built to Last, the President's budget reflects the importance
of safeguarding our environment, and strengthening our economy
by investing in clean energy, innovation, and manufacturing.
The budget also focuses on living within our means, which
is why CEQ's budget request includes a reduction from the
Fiscal Year 2012 level.
As you may know, CEQ plays a coordinating role among
Federal agencies. This helps to avoid redundancy and conflict,
and foster cohesive environmental policy. We have focused our
efforts on several priority areas, including: implementing and
modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act; enhancing
Federal Government sustainability; improving the stewardship of
the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes; protecting and restoring
America's ecosystems; and promoting clean energy.
I would like to take this opportunity to share some of our
progress with you. One of CEQ's primary focuses has been
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the NEPA process.
Over the past year, CEQ has helped agencies expedite review of
priority job-creating infrastructure projects, established
interagency rapid response teams to expedite review of priority
renewable energy transmission and transportation projects,
launched a NEPA pilot program to solicit ideas from Federal
agencies and the public about innovative time- and cost-saving
approaches to NEPA implementation, and issued new guidance for
agencies on improving the efficiency of the NEPA process,
overall.
These represent just a few of the many steps we have taken
to promote efficiency and speed the delivery of projects that
create jobs--that we can engage the public in decisions, and
protect the health of American communities.
CEQ is also responsible for overseeing the President's
directive to enhance the sustainability of Federal Government
operations. The Federal Government is the largest energy
consumer in the U.S. economy, spending more than $20 billion on
energy in 2010, according to preliminary estimates. In 2009,
the President signed an executive order that sets
sustainability performance goals for Federal agencies. Agencies
are advancing toward these goals, which can help avoid up to
$11 billion in energy costs by 2020.
CEQ also oversees the National Ocean Policy, which the
President established in response to more than a decade of
discussions, extensive public input, and calls for action from
two bipartisan commissions.
As I stated before this committee in October, the National
Ocean Policy provides the framework for all Federal agencies to
better work together and avoid the kinds of conflicts that
often delay or derail projects that support the economy and
coastal communities. At its heart, this policy is about
efficiency, reducing red tape, and making faster, more informed
decisions. And a key aspect of the National Ocean Policy has
been extensive public engagement and transparency.
The Administration has also focused on protecting and
restoring the country's valuable lands and waters. America's
outdoor economy supports more than 9 million jobs and brings in
more than $1 trillion a year. The President launched the
America's Great Outdoors initiative to develop a 21st Century
conservation agenda, in partnership with the American people.
Under this initiative, the Administration is expanding
recreational access to public lands, partnering with private
land owners to open millions of acres for hunting and fishing,
and supporting community-led conservation projects.
As the President outlined in his State of the Union, the
Administration is focused on building an economy that is built
to last. We at CEQ are doing our part to support job creation
and clean energy.
An example of one of these efforts is the Better Buildings
initiative, which seeks to improve energy efficiency in
commercial buildings, and has secured nearly $2 billion in
private financing for building energy upgrades.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Markey, as you know, the
Administration has requested $3.1 million for CEQ for Fiscal
Year 2013, a reduction of 1.3 percent from Fiscal Year 2012.
I am proud of what we have accomplished over the past three
years, and I am looking forward to continuing our progress this
year. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this
morning, and look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:]
Statement of Nancy Sutley, Council on Environmental Quality
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget request for the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ). As the President has outlined in his
Blueprint for an America Built to Last, the President's budget reflects
the importance and complementarity of safeguarding our environment and
strengthening our economy by investing in clean energy, innovation, and
manufacturing. We at CEQ are pleased to play a part of that broader
effort to speed up the economic recovery. But the budget also focuses
on living within our means, which is why CEQ's FY 2013 budget request
includes a reduction from last year's level. Those of us in public
service are committed to continuing to find ways to make the Federal
Government more efficient and more effective.
I would like to briefly discuss CEQ's role, our accomplishments to
date, and what fully-funding the Administration's request for CEQ in FY
2013 will allow us to accomplish.
Council on Environmental Quality's Role
The Council on Environmental Quality was established by Title II of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Signed into law by
President Nixon on January 1, 1970, following overwhelming bipartisan
votes in both the House and Senate, NEPA is a cornerstone of our
country's commitment to responsive government and informed decision-
making. Under NEPA, CEQ has the following responsibilities:
1) To advise the President on national environmental policies
and priorities;
2) To review and appraise Federal Government activities
relating to environmental policy objectives, and to coordinate
and resolve disputes among Federal agencies and departments'
activities relating to the environment; and
3) To implement NEPA and develop appropriate regulations.
As Chair of CEQ, I serve as the President's principal environmental
policy adviser, and in this capacity I develop policies, set
priorities, and coordinate efforts of the many Federal agencies and
departments. I am supported in these actions by my Deputy Director and
General Counsel, Gary Guzy, and our staff in the Council of
Environmental Quality.
CEQ Accomplishments from 2011
As you may know, CEQ's coordinating function helps to avoid
redundancy and conflict while fostering efficiency and policy
innovation across the Federal Government. Much of our focus the past
year has been in the areas of streamlining Federal decision-making,
sharing best practices, supporting job creation and facilitating
interagency collaboration pertaining to NEPA.
Over the course of the last year, we have focused our efforts on
several priority areas:
1) Implementing and modernizing NEPA;
2) Enhancing Federal Government sustainability;
3) Improving the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the
Great Lakes;
4) Protecting and restoring America's ecosystems; and
5) Promoting clean energy and addressing climate change.
CEQ, working alongside Federal Departments and Agencies, made
progress in many of these areas, and I would like the take this
opportunity to share those accomplishments with you.
1) Implementing and Modernizing NEPA
Over the past year, CEQ has intensified its ongoing work to
accelerate infrastructure project delivery by modernizing agency
implementation of NEPA and improving the overall efficiency and
effectiveness of Federal environmental review and permitting processes.
Recognizing that the health of our environment and the health of
the economy are inextricably linked, this Administration has focused on
improving, and demonstrated a positive track record on, NEPA
implementation. Over the course of the last three years, we have
focused our efforts on:
A robust effort to revise our NEPA guidance documents
to Federal Agencies;
An active dialogue with the general public on
evidenced-based NEPA reforms; and
Active engagement with the President's Jobs Council
and Federal agencies on enhanced collaboration on expedited
permitting for infrastructure projects.
On the last point, we believe our work on expedited permitting for
infrastructure projects enhances Agency collaboration and be
transferable to a broader universe of job-creating infrastructure
projects, as well as to help realize broader permitting efficiencies
that can be made.
NEPA requires the government to analyze and publicly disclose the
environmental consequences of its proposed actions before undertaking
actions that could significantly affect the human environment. CEQ's
tracking of Federal NEPA reviews for 193,000 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects revealed that 99.9% were completed by
September 30, 2011. Agencies were able to apply Categorical Exclusions
(the least intensive form of NEPA review) to 96% of ARRA projects.
Environmental information and public input obtained through the NEPA
process helped agency decisionmakers choose cheaper, more efficient,
and more sustainable ARRA project designs.
For major projects, the NEPA process can provide a vehicle for
coordinating other permitting and planning requirements at the Federal,
State, local, and tribal levels, and avoiding duplicative and
unnecessary sequential reviews. Through interagency coordination and
oversight of Federal NEPA implementation, CEQ is leading or
participating in several efforts to achieve these objectives, either by
accelerating decisions on particular priority projects, or advancing
broad reforms to the overall process.
In response to recommendations from the President's Jobs Council,
CEQ has worked closely with other offices on implementation of the
August 31, 2011, Presidential Memorandum on ``Speeding Infrastructure
Project Delivery.'' Specifically, CEQ is working to facilitate
agencies' review of 14 high-priority job-creating infrastructure
projects for expedited environmental review and permitting decisions.
CEQ also consulted with other offices on the design and launch of the
Federal Infrastructure Projects Dashboard, where Federal agencies
publicly track schedules and status information on pending Federal
actions for the 14 priority projects.
CEQ has also established three sector-specific Rapid Response Teams
(RRTs)--for Renewables, Transmission, and Transportation. Each RRT
consists of senior staff representatives from the relevant action and
resource agencies, who meet bi-weekly to set priorities, resolve
issues, and report on progress. Through the RRTs, sector-specific
priorities gain greater visibility in Federal agencies with
jurisdiction over relevant permitting environmental approval decisions.
The Renewables RRT is developing a roadmap of Federal
regulatory requirements for project developers.
The Transmission RRT is coordinating statutory
permitting, review, and consultation schedules between Federal
and State agencies for seven high-priority transmission lines.
The Transportation RRT is facilitating coordination
and issue resolution to expedite the six priority
transportation projects selected by DOT under the Presidential
Memorandum on Speeding Infrastructure Delivery.
NEPA Pilot Program
In March 2011, CEQ launched a NEPA Pilot Program to solicit ideas
from Federal agencies and the public about innovative time- and cost-
saving approaches to NEPA implementation. CEQ will work with project
managers to track implementation and advocate that Agencies incorporate
these best practices and lessons learned into new or revised NEPA
procedures.
Two of the pilot projects are focused on disseminating IT solutions
to improve the NEPA process. One pilot identified web-based tools
developed by the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service that
significantly shorten the amount of time needed to manage environmental
reviews. Through another pilot project, CEQ is working with EPA on the
public release of NEPAssist, a GIS database of environmental data.
Providing easy access to consolidated environmental information during
initial project development, siting, and design will reduce and
minimize the time and effort required to address environmental, safety,
and health concerns.
Another pilot will gather lessons-learned from Federal and non-
Federal NEPA practitioners who have significant experience preparing
Environmental Assessments to develop best practice principles designed
to assist in preparing more efficient and cost-effective NEPA
environmental reviews.
In January 2012, CEQ and DOT announced a pilot project to cut costs
and fast track construction for the high-speed inter-city passenger
rail project in the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C., and
Boston, MA. The Northeast Rail Corridor is the busiest rail corridor in
the United States, and expediting this environmental review will lead
to more jobs and a stronger regional economy. The pilot will engage
government stakeholders and the public in the environmental review
process earlier to set benchmarks that maintain rigorous environmental
protections and save time and costs by avoiding conflicts and delays in
the later steps of rail-project development.
Finally, in February 2012, CEQ and the U.S. Forest Service
announced the selection of a NEPA Pilot, ``Approaches to Restoration
Management,'' that will evaluate and compare the effectiveness of U.S.
Forest Service environmental reviews for two innovative and
collaborative forest restoration projects.
NEPA Efficiencies
In addition to these initiatives, CEQ has continued to exercise its
statutory authority under NEPA to provide guidance to Federal agencies
on how best to comply with the procedural requirements of NEPA. Since
2009, CEQ has issued several new guidance documents to advise Federal
agencies on more efficient approaches to NEPA.
In May 2010, CEQ issued guidance on Emergencies and
NEPA that addressed how agencies can ensure efficient and
expeditious compliance with NEPA when agencies must take
exigent action to protect human health or safety and valued
resources in a timeframe that does not allow sufficient time
for the normal NEPA process. This guidance also addressed how
agencies, in any situation including emergencies, can develop
focused and concise Environmental Assessments (EAs) to provide
an expeditious path for making decisions when the proposed
action does not have the potential for significant impacts.
In November 2010, CEQ finalized guidance on how to
establish and use ``categorical exclusions'' (CEs) for
activities--such as routine facility maintenance--that do not
need to undergo intensive NEPA review because the activities do
not individually or cumulatively have significant environmental
impacts. The CE guidance reinforced the value of categorical
exclusions.
In January 2011, CEQ issued guidance on the use of
mitigation commitments in EAs. Agencies often use EAs to
identify mitigation measures that, when implemented, will
eliminate potential significant impacts that might require
review in a more intensive Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
In December 2011, CEQ issued new draft guidance for
public comment on improving the efficiency of the NEPA process
overall, by integrating planning and environmental reviews,
avoiding duplication in multi-agency or multi-governmental
reviews and approvals, engaging early with stakeholders, and
setting clear timelines for the completion of reviews.
Finally, CEQ has fulfilled its responsibilities to review proposed
agency NEPA implementing procedures with an eye to improving agency
NEPA compliance in a timely and efficient manner.
Retrospective Review of NEPA Regulations
In January 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563,
calling on agencies to engage in retrospective regulatory analysis of
rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome. To meet its obligations to improve our regulatory system by
protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while
promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation, CEQ is using the NEPA Pilot Program to review its NEPA
Regulations. We are actively engaging with Federal agencies and the
general public as part of this retrospective review process.
The CEQ NEPA Regulations establish guidelines Federal agencies must
follow to ensure that their NEPA implementing procedures are consistent
with NEPA's policy objectives and procedural requirements. CEQ's goal
is to improve effectiveness and efficiency of the NEPA process by
identifying and selecting projects that underscore the President's
goals for improved public participation, greater integration and
innovation, flexible approaches and sound science in our regulations.
Eventually, successful pilots could lead to the adoption of new or
revised NEPA procedures and could identify which of CEQ's NEPA
Regulations would benefit from revision. Under this process, CEQ is
working to identify innovative approaches that reduce the time and
costs required for effective implementation of its NEPA Regulations.
These innovative approaches promote faster and more effective Federal
decisions on projects that create jobs, grow the economy, and protect
the health and environment of communities.
2) Enhancing Federal Government Sustainability
The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the
U.S. economy. Preliminary data shows that the Federal Government spent
more than $20 billion on electricity and fuel in 2010. It owns nearly
500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, and purchases
more than $500 billion per year in goods and services. The Federal
Government's size and scale make improving its own practices an
effective policy tool to move the country toward greater
sustainability.
On October 5, 2009, the President signed an Executive Order (EO)
that sets sustainability performance goals for Federal agencies and
calls for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from Federal
activities. More specifically, the EO required Federal agencies to set
a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target; increase energy
efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce
waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage Federal purchasing
power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.
CEQ is responsible for assessing Federal agency progress towards the
goals of the EO and for identifying tools and strategies to assist
Federal implementation efforts.
Under the EO, each Federal agency was required to submit its 2020
greenhouse gas pollution reduction target to CEQ and OMB so that the
Federal Government could develop an overall greenhouse gas reduction
goal. On January 29, 2010, the President announced that the Federal
Government would reduce its direct emissions of greenhouse gas
pollution by 28 percent from 2008 levels by 2020. Assuming current
energy prices, achieving this reduction target will save the American
taxpayers a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy
costs through 2020.
In April 2011, CEQ released the first-ever comprehensive GHG
emissions inventory for the Federal Government. Based on that
inventory, the Federal Government reduced direct GHG emissions and GHG
emissions associated with electricity and other offsite generated
energy used by the Federal government (Scope 1 and 2) by 6.4 percent,
from 52.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) to
49.1 MMTCO2e, from a 2008 baseline.
We are also on track for the Federal Government to meet the
President's call to lead by example. In FY 2010, the Government
purchased or produced renewable energy equivalent to 5.2% of total
electricity use, reduced water consumption intensity by 10.4% relative
to fiscal year 2007, and decreased energy intensity by 14.6% relative
to fiscal year 2003. As an example of Government leading the way in
renewable energy, the Department of the Navy is making one of the
largest commitments to clean energy in history. As the President
announced in his State of the Union Address, the Navy will purchase 1
gigawatt of renewable energy, enough to power a quarter of a million
homes a year.
CEQ's Office of the Federal Environmental Executive will continue
to work with agencies to ensure implementation of the Executive Order
on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance and the Federal greenhouse gas emission reduction goal.
3) Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great Lakes
America's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes regions support over 66
million jobs and contribute nearly $8 trillion to the national economy
each year. In response to more than a decade of discussions, extensive
public input, and calls for action from two bi-partisan Commissions, in
July 2010, President Obama established the first comprehensive National
Ocean Policy to improve the stewardship of the ocean, coasts, and Great
Lakes, and a National Ocean Council to implement the Policy.
As I stated before this Committee last October, the National Ocean
Policy provides the framework for all Federal agencies to better work
together to thoughtfully manage our nation's oceans, coasts, and Great
Lakes and ensure they will be healthy and productive for current and
future generations. The policy is proactive, looking to avoid conflict
and delay, which is all too often the norm. It provides for better
coordination and integration of the laws, policies, and regulations
affecting the oceans, coasts, and Great lakes, and seeks to avoid the
kinds of conflicts and controversies that often delay and sometimes
derail ocean-related projects that support the economy and coastal
communities. At its heart, this policy is about efficiency, reducing
red tape, and making faster, more informed decisions.
Since the National Ocean Policy was established, we are already
seeing some progress:
In January 2012, the National Ocean Council released
its Draft Implementation Plan identifying priority actions
under existing authorities that will provide the Nation with
clean water and improve public health; support emerging and
existing uses of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes--
and the resources they provide--through basic research and more
efficient permitting; strengthen the resiliency of coastal
communities against climate change impacts; and deliver
observations and information that allow our Nation's businesses
to operate safely and efficiently off of our coasts. It
reflects ideas and input from States, local officials, tribal
governments, industry, recreational users, non-governmental
organizations, the public, and other stakeholders who provided
critical feedback to the National Ocean Council.
The National Ocean Policy principles have helped
shape numerous other ocean-related work in the Arctic, the Gulf
Coast, and the Great Lakes. For example:
In light of the Policy's adoption of ecosystem-
based management, the U.S. is proposing an ecosystem-
based management initiative under the Arctic Council,
which is now under way.
The National Ocean Council and the Gulf of
Mexico Ecosystem Restoration Task Force are
coordinating efforts to ensure resources and efforts
are leveraged rather than duplicated with respect to
Gulf Coast restoration.
In December 2011, the National Ocean Council launched
its data portal, ocean.data.gov, which is a one-stop source for
Federal ocean data, information, and tools to improve science-
based decision-making and support all stakeholders engaged in
mapping and planning for the future uses of the ocean, our
coasts, and the Great Lakes. Ocean.data.gov brings Federal data
to the public in an open and transparent manner. Data sources
for Ocean.data.gov will be provided by NOAA, the Navy, DOI,
EPA, NASA, Army Corps of Engineers, DOE, the National Science
Foundation, and other Federal agencies, and will make
accessible valuable long-term datasets on oceanographic
conditions and natural resources.
A key aspect in the development and implementation of
the National Ocean Policy has been extensive public engagement
and transparency. For example, over the past year, the National
Ocean Council brought together Federal, State, tribal, and
local government representatives, members of the public, and
other stakeholders from across the country for twelve regional
public listening sessions on the draft Implementation Plan
outlines, face-to-face meetings, and a National Coastal and
Marine Spatial Planning Workshop, in addition to public comment
periods, to discuss how implementation of the National Ocean
Policy can grow and protect jobs, secure energy independence,
enhance recreational activities, and maximize uses of our
Nation's waters while ensuring their conservation.
The National Ocean Council also established a
Governance Coordinating Committee, comprising officials from
states, Federally-recognized tribes, and local governments. The
Governance Coordinating Committee works with the National Ocean
Council on ocean policy issues that cut across political,
geographic, and other boundaries. The Governance Coordinating
Committee provides a critical link to and strengthens the lines
of communication with State, tribal, and local governments on
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues.
We are also seeing better collaboration and use of resources across
the Federal Government as a result of the Policy. For example, the
National Ocean Policy has strengthened interagency collaboration on
regional, ocean, and coastal restoration efforts in the Gulf Coast
through the Gulf Coast Restoration Task Force and the Great Lakes
through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
4) Protecting and Restoring America's Ecosystems
On April 16, 2010, President Obama launched the America's Great
Outdoors Initiative, calling upon the Secretaries of the Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Chair of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality to develop a 21st-century conservation agenda
that would seek to protect America's natural and cultural resources,
and connect people to the great outdoors through jobs, education,
recreation, and service. The President asked Federal agencies to listen
to and learn from the American people resulting in what became one of
the largest public engagement efforts around conservation in our
Nation's history.
The Administration has spent the last two years implementing the
shared vision of the America's Great Outdoors initiative (AGO), and a
few select accomplishments include--
Expanding Recreational Access to Public Lands--The
Administration established a Federal Interagency Council on
Outdoor Recreation that is improving recreational access to
public lands, waters, and shores in partnership with Federal,
State, and tribal agencies.
Connecting Communities with the Outdoors in All Fifty
States--As outlined in the America's Great Outdoors 50-State
Report released in November 2011, DOI is working with other
Federal agencies, States, and communities on more than 100
projects across all fifty States to improve park accessibility,
create urban green spaces, restore rivers, and protect special
places.
Hunting and Fishing Access--In the last two years,
USDA helped support 25 State public access programs, which will
open an estimated 2.4 million acres for hunting, fishing, and
other outdoor recreational opportunities on privately-owned
land. USDA provided almost $23 million in grants in FYs 2010
and 2011 through the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat
Incentive Program.
CEQ will continue its work in the coming year with its Federal
agency partners and the general public on the AGO initiative.
The Obama Administration has given priority attention to targeted
ecosystem restoration efforts. Through collaboration with State, local,
tribal, nonprofit, and private stakeholders, we are achieving tangible
improvements in water quality, species recovery, habitat restoration,
and invasive species management with focused work in key ecosystems.
Success and advancement could not happen without interagency
coordination, because any one agency alone cannot address all of the
issues these complex ecosystems are confronting. CEQ helps to
coordinate and facilitate interagency work to restore America's
ecosystems, as illustrated by the following examples--
Chesapeake Bay--In May 2009, President Obama signed
Executive Order 13508, calling on the Federal Government to
lead a renewed effort to restore and protect the Nation's
largest estuary and its watershed. This effort is widely
regarded as essential and the most comprehensive plan yet to
save this critical ecosystem.
Everglades--The Administration has invested more than
$756 million in Federal construction funding from DOI and the
Army Corps from 2009 to 2012 to jump-start projects that are
restoring freshwater flows to the Everglades. Everglades
restoration projects now under way have generated over 6,600
direct construction jobs and will generate thousands more.
Gulf Coast--President Obama established the Gulf
Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to restore ecosystems
from the damage of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and to
reverse long-standing ecological decline through coordinated
actions. The Task Force released the Gulf of Mexico Regional
Ecosystem Restoration Strategy in December 2011, and work is
progressing to implement the strategy.
Great Lakes and Asian Carp--The Obama Administration
has made the most significant investment in decades in
restoration of the Great Lakes, the world's largest surface
freshwater system. Through a coordinated interagency process
led by the EPA, implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative (GLRI) is helping to restore the Great Lakes
ecosystem, and ultimately improve the health and environment of
the area's 30 million Americans. Further, GLRI has been central
to the Administration's coordinated effort to prevent invasive
Asian Carp from reaching the Great Lakes.
California Bay-Delta--DOI, EPA, USDA, the Army Corps,
NOAA, and the State of California are working to elevate and
coordinate water issues in the California Bay-Delta.
5) Promoting Clean Energy and Addressing Climate Change
As the President outlined in his State of the Union, the
Administration is focused on building an economy built to last. The
President is committed to helping transition our economy to one that
runs on clean energy while also preparing for the impacts of climate
change. We at CEQ are doing our part to support job creation in clean
energy and prepare for the effects of climate change.
Recovery Through Retrofit
In 2009, the Vice President asked CEQ to develop proposals to
expand green job opportunities and boost energy savings for the middle
class. In October 2009, CEQ presented the Vice President with the
``Recovery Through Retrofit'' report, the result of an interagency
effort that was focused on ways to address barriers to and lay the
groundwork for a self-sustaining home energy upgrade industry. The
report focused on three particularly challenging areas--the lack of
information available to consumers and businesses, the lack of
financing options, and the lack of skilled workers--and suggested ways
for the Federal Government to begin to break down these barriers. Since
release of the report, CEQ has led ongoing implementation efforts
across Departments and agencies, including:
DOE's Home Energy Score, a new voluntary program that
is helping homeowners make cost-effective decisions about
energy improvements;
A pilot program for the Federal Housing
Administration's PowerSaver loan product, to help consumers
finance energy-saving improvements;
DOE's Guidelines for Home Energy Professionals, to
help foster a skilled and credentialed retrofit workforce,
including the development of standard work specifications for
upgrades and guidelines for effective training and
certification. To complement this effort, EPA has worked with
DOE to release a set of Healthy Indoor Protocols for Home
Energy Upgrades, which provide a set of best practices for
improving indoor air quality in conjunction with energy upgrade
work in homes; and
USDA has launched the Rural Economic Development
Energy Efficiency Effort (REDEEE), to improve access to home
energy efficiency improvements in rural America by working with
electric cooperatives.
Better Buildings Initiative
In February 2011, the President announced the Better Buildings
Initiative, which aims to improve energy efficiency in commercial
buildings by 20 percent by 2020 through a series of administrative
actions, a challenge to the private sector, and legislative proposals.
The Administration also announced a MOU between DOE and the Appraisal
Foundation to establish standards and guidelines to industry
practitioners for factoring energy performance into buildings
appraisals, as well as a new competitive grant program for technical
and community colleges to create training programs for building energy
management. This past year, the President announced the formal rollout
of the Better Buildings Challenge--a public-private partnership that by
December 2011 included new private and local public sector commitments
totaling more than 1.6 billion square feet, 300 manufacturing plants,
and nearly $2 billion in financing support for building energy
upgrades. In addition, the President issued a Memorandum directing
agencies to enter into a combined minimum of $2 billion in performance-
based contracts over the next two years to retrofit Federal buildings.
These contracts represent an approach to financing retrofits that uses
long term-energy savings to pay for up-front costs, resulting in no net
cost to the American taxpayer.
CEQ's work over the past year has also included three specific
energy and climate initiatives: transmission on public lands, Federal
Government adaptation to climate change, and developing new Federal-
state collaboration on Great Lakes wind energy.
Transmission on Public Lands
The Administration is committed to increasing the amount of clean
energy produced and transmitted across the country. To further this
commitment and avoid duplicative work by a number of agencies, CEQ
facilitated the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
signed by nine Federal agencies that will expedite the siting and
construction of transmission facilities in the U.S. The MOU, which was
announced by the President on October 27, 2009, reduces duplication of
effort across the federal Government and reduces the time and barriers
to site new transmission lines on Federal lands.
CEQ is now working to ensure that the MOU is implemented on the
ground through the interagency Rapid Response Team for Transmission
(RRTT), which was briefly mentioned above. The RRTT is focusing
initially on seven pilot project transmission lines which, when built,
will help increase electric reliability and integrate new renewable
energy into the grid. These seven transmission pilot projects are
estimated to create thousands of construction and operation jobs.
Climate Change Adaptation Task Force
The Obama Administration is taking action to address the risks to
our economy, water and food supply, national security, infrastructure,
public health, and natural resources posed by the impacts of climate
change. In 2009, by Executive Order, the Obama Administration convened
the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by
CEQ, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and NOAA, and
including representatives from more than 20 Federal agencies. Building
on the expertise and resources of these agencies, the Task Force has
been working to expand and strengthen the Nation's capacity to better
understand, prepare for, and respond to extreme events and other
climate change impacts.
Under the auspices of the Task Force, this year Federal agencies
have taken steps to identify and address vulnerabilities across all
sectors, providing scientific analyses and decision support in sectors,
and development of three sector-specific adaptation strategies designed
to ensure coordinated action to safeguard the nation's critical natural
resources, particularly freshwater, oceans and coasts, and fish,
wildlife, and plants.
As part of this effort, CEQ worked with DOI and NOAA to provide
Congress with the fish, wildlife, and plants adaptation report called
for the FY 2010 Interior Appropriations Conference report language.
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request for CEQ
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Markey, as you know, the
Administration has requested $3.1 million for CEQ for fiscal year 2013.
This funding level includes a reduction of $42,000 or 1.3 percent of
last year's enacted level.
Now in its 42nd year, NEPA has a proven record of protecting public
health, safety, and environmental quality by ensuring transparency,
accountability, and public involvement in Federal actions and in the
use of public funds. As environmental issues grow more complex, CEQ
strives to provide the agencies a consultative resource and an
institutional base of NEPA knowledge by assisting them to formulate,
revise, and update their NEPA procedures on a regular basis.
Maintaining this funding level is essential for CEQ to continue its
mission of helping Federal agencies navigate environmental conflicts,
find sustainable solutions, promote transparency, and ease NEPA
implementation. In FY 13, we will continue our work to improve NEPA
implementation, increase interagency coordination through the National
Ocean Policy and America's Great Outdoors Initiative, and maximize
efficiencies within the Federal Government to ensure that Federal
regulations continue to protect the air we breathe and the water we
drink in a commonsense and cost effective manner.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and all members of the Committee, I
am proud of what the Council on Environmental Quality has accomplished
over the past three years and with your support, and am looking forward
to what the Council will achieve this year. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify this morning and look forward to answering your
questions.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Sutley. I
appreciate your testimony. We will start the questioning, and I
will start first.
Let me--as I alluded to in my opening statement, at least
the focus that I wanted to focus on is the National Ocean
Policy. And at the October 26th hearing, I asked about the lack
of public input and transparency in developing that National
Ocean Policy, and the activities of the regional zoning
bodies--and I included by asking why the regional zoning bodies
are exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA.
But I really didn't get a clear answer on that.
And so, let me ask a question again. Will these regional
zoning bodies be complying with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, including holding public hearings? And if not, why not?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
the opportunity to be here, and also your continuing interest
in the National Ocean Policy.
The regional planning bodies will be comprised of
governmental members, and therefore, not directly subject to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act. But the commitment that we
have made is to full, open, and transparent process for those
regional planning bodies, so that we have the opportunity and--
we provide the opportunity and are seeking the input of all the
interested stakeholders, as we move forward on this policy.
I think it is our view that the benefit of doing this kind
of up-front engagement, both for the coastal--the governments
in the coastal area, but also including the public and the
stakeholders, it will help to enhance the value of these
planning bodies.
The Chairman. I am not sure I still got the answer to that,
but let me go on to--maybe we should pursue that based on what
you said. Maybe I will have a follow-up precisely on that.
Let me go to another area. In the past, when we were
talking about the National Ocean Policy, or you know, I guess
the leadership, they were reluctant to admit that this policy
and the implementation of that would affect activities on the
land. Yet the draft Implementation Plan makes it clear that
this will affect land activities.
In fact, there is a new section that is titled--and I
quote--``Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on Land.''
This section cites suburban run-off, agriculture,
transportation, and industry ``even hundreds of miles away,''
affecting water quality. This section also states that
successful implementation of the policy will require--and
again, I quote--``the use of regulatory and non-regulatory
measures to enhance water quality.''
Now, that is a pretty clear statement, to me, that this
National Ocean Policy intends to implement new regulations to
restrict or alter on-land activities, like farming, to enhance
ocean water quality. So, since this is in the draft plan, could
you comment on this?
Ms. Sutley. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. The policy recognized
that there is a connection between activities on the land and
in the ocean, and that--but that there has to be sort of a
reason, basis for making that connection.
So, the implementation plan, I think, just seeks to clarify
that, that it is important, as we go forward in trying to deal
with some of the things that are affecting water quality in our
coastal areas, that there are circumstances in which you have
to look at activities on the land, run-off being one of them.
But----
The Chairman. Why, then, if--I mean if that is the case--
you said hundreds of miles, yet representation on these boards
are not made up of people that represent those areas inland?
Why is that not the case?
Ms. Sutley. Well, let me just say that the idea is not to
add new regulatory requirements, but try to focus those
existing requirements where agencies need to sort of really
focus on them, as we were looking at activities on the land
that may affect the health of the oceans. So we are not adding
new activities.
In addition----
The Chairman. Well, since my time is running out, there was
a statement in your draft that says--and I quote--``The
policy''--and I quote--``The use of regulatory and non-
regulatory measures to enhance water quality.'' That certainly
sounds to me like some regulatory activity.
Ms. Sutley. Well, there is currently regulatory activity
and non-regulatory activity that is trying to reduce pollution
in our waters.
The Chairman. I recognize all of that. I am talking about
specifically the National Ocean Policy, which would be,
according to the draft, another layer of regulations.
Ms. Sutley. Well, it is not intended to impose another
layer of regulations. It is really intended to try to focus the
attention of the agencies as they are doing their jobs to focus
on the impacts of water quality in the--on the health of the
oceans.
The Chairman. I am way over time on this. I thank you. I am
sure we will have more conversation.
Mr. Markey is recognized.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sutley, the goal of the National Ocean Policy is to
coordinate actions that impact our coasts and people and
businesses utilizing these resources. Massachusetts has been at
the forefront of developing marine spatial planning to provide
coherence to activities off of its coast.
We can now put a dollar amount on how successful that
effort has been. This week, a study publish in the proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences was released, demonstrating
that economic benefits of regional ocean planning, by bringing
fishermen and offshore wind developers together, this study
shows that using marine spatial planning over conventional
practices could prevent over $1 million in losses to fisheries
and whale-watching industries, while generating over $10
billion in extra value to the energy sector.
Rather than the negative impacts my Republican colleagues
fear, isn't the purpose of the National Ocean Policy to achieve
similar benefits to what Massachusetts has already experienced,
but spread it across America's oceans and the Great Lakes?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you for the question. We believe
the answer to that is yes, that I think building on the
experience that States like Massachusetts has had, in terms of
the up-front engagement about bringing in all the stakeholders,
bringing in all the parts of the government that have some
responsibility over the stewardship of our ocean and marine
resources, that in bringing all of those together, we can use
the best available science, get everybody involved in the
discussion up front, and reduce the potential for conflict that
can negatively affect economic activity in the ocean.
Mr. Markey. Well, the National Environmental Policy Act
process provides a way to solicit stakeholder input on Federal
actions and improve decisions that the government makes. In
spite of this, the Republican Majority has passed legislation
out of this committee, H.R. 2170, that would restrict NEPA to
only allow consideration of the proposed project, or no action
for renewable energy projects. It would not allow for any
middle ground solutions.
Given that 96 percent of Recovery Act renewable energy
projects were authorized under NEPA's categorical exclusions,
this legislation seems like an answer in search of a problem.
A, if this legislation were enacted, couldn't it actually
significantly harm renewable energy development by forcing the
BLM to select the ``no action'' alternative for many decisions,
because other alternatives or mitigation measures could not be
considered under NEPA?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you. We think that the way that NEPA
currently handles things like looking at a range of
alternatives actually helps to lead to better decision-making.
And I think it also--I mean the purpose of NEPA is to engage
the public, inform the public about decisions that the Federal
Government is making, and for those agencies to describe the
potential impacts on the environment. And I think that that
helps to get a better set of decisions in front of decision-
makers.
So, we think that the system actually works pretty well.
And on the renewable energy side, we have been working closely
with many agencies who have jurisdiction over renewable energy
projects. And again, we find that up front engagement and
collaboration and full consideration of alternatives leads to
better decisions.
Mr. Markey. OK. Let me ask you this. Let me ask you a few
hypothetical questions. If you owned property that was flooded
year after year, would you take actions to protect it?
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Markey. If you knew the risk of fire damage to your
property was increasing, would you take measures to protect
it----
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Markey [continuing]. Against fires? If you knew your
supply of drinking water was threatened, would you find ways to
better manage it?
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Markey. Well, since we know sea level is rising,
extreme rainfall is increasing, the wildfire season is
expanding, and snowpack across much of the West is declining,
shouldn't the Federal Government prepare for these impacts, as
good stewards of Federal lands and taxpayers' dollars?
Ms. Sutley. Yes. We believe that it is important to--in how
we manage risks, and that in looking at the risks associated
with climate change, and the potential impacts on not only on
Federal activities, but as Federal activities affect all
Americans, affect state and local government, affect our
economic activity, that it is prudent to consider how we manage
these risks, how we reduce vulnerability, and increase
resiliency.
Mr. Markey. So--and that is the goal of the Interagency
Climate Adaptation Task Force, is it not?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, it is.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman is expired. Dr.
Fleming is recognized.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Sutley, I am
very impressed with the credentials that you present on your
bio: a master's from Harvard, a degree from Cornell, worked in
the EPA and in other areas of administration. But have you,
ma'am, ever owned or run a small business?
Ms. Sutley. No, sir.
Dr. Fleming. Ever made a small business payroll?
Ms. Sutley. No.
Dr. Fleming. You have some colleagues here today. Have any
of them ever owned, managed, or made a small business payroll?
Ms. Sutley. I don't know the answer to that.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Well, you know, I heard you talk about the
impact on business and the economy. And I can tell you that one
of the biggest complaints I get from my district, the Fourth
District of Louisiana, is that all of these agencies,
environmental committees, what have you, councils, seem not to
understand the impact of regulations upon our cost, upon our
employees and their lives.
And, in fact, I would like to refer back, just to lay the
foundation of the question I am going to ask you. Very
recently, when asked in committee, the Appropriations
Subcommittee, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu--the question was,
``If the overall goal is to get our gasoline''--``Is the
overall goal''--no, I am sorry. ``If the overall goal is to get
our gasoline price lower''--or, I apologize, there is a
misprint here. ``Is the overall goal to get our gasoline price
lower?'' And his reply was no. And he added that the overall
goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.
And that goes back to a previous statement that he made in
which he said, ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the
price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''
And we have had other comments. The President himself said,
under his cap and trade plan, that electricity prices would
necessarily skyrocket. Interior Secretary Salazar made
statements to the effect that $10 a gallon gasoline would be
acceptable. This is very worrisome for my district, my
constituents, when it comes to jobs and the gasoline prices
that, as you know, are skyrocketing.
What I want to do is take you to the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act, section 3, subsection 3. ``It is hereby
declared to be the policy of the United States that the Outer
Continental Shelf is a vital national resource reserve held by
the Federal Government for the public, which should be made
available for expeditious and orderly development, subject to
the environmental safeguards in a manner which is consistent
with the maintenance of competition and the other national
needs.''
How can a major new process that we are talking about
today--and, more specifically, coastal and marine spatial
planning--be consistent with the expeditious and orderly
development directive set up under OCSLA?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you, sir. I think we all--and the
President is very aware of the impact that rising gas prices
have on American families. And we are all working very hard on
the President's all-of-the-above energy strategy, to make sure
that we are doing everything we can on behalf of the American
people.
The specific question on the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act and marine spatial planning, I would make a couple of
points.
One is the latest program from the Department of the
Interior is 75 percent of the recoverable--the known resources
are open to export--are open to development. Our view is that
we believe that the marine spatial planning will help to
expedite consideration of any uses of the ocean by getting----
Dr. Fleming. Well, I don't doubt that you believe that,
ma'am. But there is absolutely no evidence to support that. I
will remind you that all of these offshore areas were opened
after--as President Bush left office, because prices were high
before. President Obama actually came back and closed most of
them down. And then, of course, after the Macondo incident we
had all sorts of problems, which led to delays, and we are
still trying to recover from that.
So, from my perspective, and from my constituents'
perspective, that spatial planning is only adding another layer
of bureaucracy to the process, slowing down the production of
oil, increasing the prices of gasoline at the pump, and killing
Louisiana jobs.
And so, as I say, I think from your perspective, coming
from the EPA, coming from the Administration, where these don't
directly impact you--but I would suggest to you that those who
own small businesses, those who make payrolls, those who have
to fill their cars with gasoline, and their trucks, and their
business with fuel, that all they are seeing is just a lot of
talk coming from Washington, but no action.
And again, the Strategic Oil Reserve, tapping that is about
the only thing that has been suggested by this Administration
when, in fact, gasoline prices are going up a cent per day.
I am sorry, I guess I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. But
that is the way Louisiana feels about this.
The Chairman. Yes, the time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, is recognized.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Chair, my
district borders on the Great Lakes, specifically Lake Huron.
How many agencies are involved in our efforts to control the
Asian Carp, which is threatening to invade Great Lakes? Can you
give some examples of the cooperation among the various
agencies in trying to keep them from that invasion?
The Great Lakes are the largest body of fresh water in the
world, although Lake Baikal might claim that, too, in the
Russian Federation. But what type of cooperation are the
various agencies doing to try to prevent that disastrous
invasion?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you. Preventing the Asian Carp from
establishing themselves in the Great Lakes is a high priority
for the Administration. And CEQ chairs the Asian Carp Response
Committee that is made up of a number of Federal agencies, as
well as the Great Lakes states, to really focus on all of the
things that we can do right now to prevent the spread of Asian
Carp into the Great Lakes.
We put a significant amount of money into both physical
barriers and--as well as fishing and just trying--and the
research and development and monitoring, so that we can fight
this potential spread as we are developing a long-term
solution.
So, I think we have had a very good interagency and
intergovernmental work plan over the last three years,
agencies, again, putting a lot of time and effort into both the
actions right now to prevent the spread of Asian Carp, as well
as developing a long-term solution to keep them out
permanently.
Mr. Kildee. How serious is there discussion on closing the
canals, the artificial canals, that were done at the beginning
of this past century for shipping? Any serious discussion of
closing those? Because there is no natural way those fish could
get into the Great Lakes, except through the--those canals that
are man-made.
Ms. Sutley. Well, there--we have been looking at all the
possible solutions, and all the possible avenues where the
Great Lakes--where the carp could enter the Great Lakes. So
there is both a short-term dimension of this, the trying to
manage under the current system, through the use of barriers
and other techniques to keep the carp out right now, as well as
investing in research. The biological research will help us
understand how the carp move and how they behave, as well as
developing the long-term solution.
So, we are constantly evaluating what the best techniques
are to keep the carp out of the Great Lakes. The Army Corps of
Engineers, at Congress's direction, is working on a study that
looks at the connection between the Great Lakes system and the
Mississippi River system, and what ways--what are the pathways
that we need to pay attention to, and in developing the long-
term solution to keep the carp out of the lakes.
Mr. Kildee. I really appreciate the work you are doing. I
encourage you to do it with all deliberate speed, and--because
the danger is very, very imminent.
Ms. Sutley. We agree, and we appreciate the support from
Congress, and know that this is a priority for the
Administration, to make sure that we are working closely with
the Great Lakes states, in trying to keep the carp out of the
lakes.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. The gentleman yield back?
Mr. Kildee. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time. Mr.
Southerland from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Southerland. Ms. Sutley, thank you very much for being
here today. I know that last time you were here we had a
spirited discussion on something that you alluded to just again
a few moments ago, that the idea here is no new regulations. I
am sure you recall----
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Southerland [continuing]. That exchange. I am amazed
that you continue to say that it does not--that the idea is not
for new regulations. But yet, I mean, the very statement from
the White House is very clear, in that it will lead to new
regulations.
I mean I am struggling with that. I have some other
questions that I want to ask you, obviously, but you stated it
again today. I mean is it still your opinion that the White
House is incorrect, and that you are right?
Ms. Sutley. Well, I--as we discussed at the last hearing,
the intention is not to have--it is not to have new
regulations, that really, what we are trying to do is make----
Mr. Southerland. Well, then why would the President sign an
executive order that clearly lays the path for new regulations?
Ms. Sutley. Well, what the executive order and what the
policy does is to say that we should not only work within the
existing regulations, try to make more sense of the more than
100 laws, policies, and regulations that affect Federal
agencies as they manage coastal and marine resources, but
that--to look at our current policy and program, and see if
there are ways that we can streamline that.
So, I don't think that I would think this is a success, if
we ended up with new regulations. I think it would be a success
if we end up streamlining the way that the Federal Government
manages the coastal and ocean resources.
Mr. Southerland. The--one question I would like to add, or
comment. I know that the Ranking Member made reference to wind
disasters and fire disasters and flood disasters, and you
answered his question that you think it would--you would take
prudent steps to protect your well-being in his example.
I mean I--I mean we are clearly in a financial disaster. I
would assume that you would also believe that it is prudent to
take necessary steps to protect our well-being in light of this
current financial disaster that we find ourselves in. Would you
not?
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Southerland. That is fair. We had a gentleman here
yesterday who stated on the record that he thought that the
President's budget--that he--the fourth consecutive trillion-
dollar deficit budget that he has presented to Congress, and
the $5 trillion of new debt that has been added onto the backs
of the hard-working men and women of this country was, in his
words, ``responsible.''
I am just curious, because you are in a high position. I
mean do you think that continuing to spend money that we do not
have, borrowing $.50 of every dollar, is a prudent step to
protect our financial well-being?
Ms. Sutley. Well, I think the President presented a budget
that does--that will meet the caps that Congress agreed to, and
will reduce the deficit. For our part at CEQ, we--our Fiscal
Year 2013 proposal does include a reduction. So the President
has made the commitment for the Federal Government to live
within its means.
Mr. Southerland. Well, that is rather humorous, the Federal
Government living within its means.
Let me ask you this regarding the specificity of the
National Ocean Policy, regarding your budget. Would you provide
for this committee a cross-cutting budget for the oceans policy
going forward, so we can get an idea of----
Ms. Sutley. We are happy to follow up with that.
Mr. Southerland. OK, OK. And my next line of questions
would go well beyond my time remaining. So, Mr. Chair, I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, is recognized.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to ask Ms. Sutley on the President's National Ocean Policy,
specifically dealing with coastal and spatial planning efforts,
and my concern is its potential impacts on future oil and gas
supplies.
Many of us are concerned that the marine spatial planning
goes forward without having the up-to-date data necessary, and
the potential impact it could have, long term, on those
resources that we need for domestic production. And the--I mean
the spatial planning efforts that I have been familiar with I
think are logical and, over the long term, probably are
necessary. But the likely impact on the limitations of the plan
I think remain forever locked up if we don't update the plan.
For example, planning outside the Gulf of Mexico in areas
of--that we are currently utilizing, the data that we have is
actually about 30 years old, I am told. If we are relying upon
data that old, nobody would be investing much in the way of
those natural resources. As an example, in the Gulf of Mexico,
we have already seen five times as much oil, and six times as
much natural gas as what we originally determined was there 30
years ago on that old data.
So, what assurances could you give us that the National
Ocean Council is dedicated to gathering newer, more accurate
information for OCS planning purposes, and the seismic survey
work that must be done before decisions should be made, in my
view, concerning what areas are appropriate for oil, gas, and
other energy development?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you, Mr. Costa. The----
Mr. Costa. You understand what I am saying, putting the
cart before the horse?
Ms. Sutley. I understand. The----
Mr. Costa. That is an old farm term.
Ms. Sutley. The National Ocean Policy is clear that we need
to rely on the best available science in making decisions.
Mr. Costa. But when some of that science is very old, that
is not a good thing, I don't think.
Ms. Sutley. Well, and part of the purpose of bringing the
agencies together is to share data, and to make sure that
agencies are taking advantage of the scientific knowledge that
there is around the government----
Mr. Costa. OK. Well, I want to move the questioning along
to another line. But could you provide the Committee and the
rest of the Members of what attempts CEQ is doing to update the
new available science and data, as a precursor for doing this
planning?
Ms. Sutley. Excuse me.
Mr. Costa. After you get done coughing. So just say yes,
and we will move on to the next questioning.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costa. Let's bring it back home to California. As you
know, I have been involved for years in trying to ensure that
the entire State has adequate water supply. And 2009 and 2010
was awful, it was horrific, and ground zero was in my
congressional district, in terms of the shortages of available
water to the farmers, to the farm communities, and the farm
workers that were devastated by both a hydrological and, in my
view, regulatory-caused drought that made it far more difficult
than it should have been.
Under the category of lessons learned in 2009 and 2010,
what are we doing? Because last year we had a great year, 174
percent of snow pack. But at this year we are at 22 percent,
and it ain't looking very good.
So, what concrete steps will the Council on Environmental
Quality be taking in California's ongoing water challenges, and
how does the President's budget in the Fiscal Year 2013 help
that effort?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you. It was a very important
subject, and a high priority for the Administration, to ensure
that we are both ensuring the health of the Bay Delta
ecosystem, and ensuring that there are adequate water supplies.
Pardon me.
Mr. Costa. No, I understand. But we know that you are
restating facts.
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Costa. Those are two equal goals.
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Costa. And I am concerned about both goals being
coequal. So, on the latter part, in terms of assuring during
lower snowpack, how are we going to make sure that we get more
than 30 percent allocation?
Ms. Sutley. Well, and----
Mr. Costa. Which is what has been projected last--two weeks
ago.
Ms. Sutley. Thanks. The--excuse me. The Department of the
Interior is taking the lessons learned from the very dry years
that we faced, in terms of both better communication and better
engagement with the water contractors in--and the reclamation
commissioner has been spending a lot of time in California,
working----
Mr. Costa. Yes.
Ms. Sutley [continuing]. With the State. And I think the
most important thing is that we continue the very strong
cooperation with the State of California, to manage both the
water resources now, and continue to work on developing the
long-term solution to ensure that California has adequate water
supply.
Mr. Costa. All right. Well, my time has expired. And as you
catch your breath, I would appreciate--I am in contact with all
of your folks on a weekly basis, so--but I would like some
assurances from you that your--that the White House is
following up on this, and that we are not going to repeat some
of the same mistakes we made in 2009 and 2010 that exacerbated
the regulatory aspects of the deficient water supply that could
have been done in a much more fair fashion, in my view. So----
Ms. Sutley. Yes----
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Costa. Yes. So we will have that conversation. Thank
you.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Thompson, is recognized.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sutley, thanks
for your testimony. Ms. Sutley, in your testimony you mentioned
the President's executive order on the Chesapeake Bay,
representing Pennsylvania. And actually, on the Agriculture
Committee I chair the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy,
Forestry, and jurisdiction over watershed. So it certainly
caught my eye.
You know, the TMDL is now in phase two, and we are still
without an economic analysis. Now, this is a very serious issue
that is already having extraordinary and devastating impacts on
my home State of Pennsylvania, and throughout my congressional
district.
Now, the EPA has told me in writing that they expect the
cost benefits analysis to be completed by the end of the year.
But there is no firm deadline for completion. And, in fact, the
EPA has also indicated to me that, in a quote from
communications, ``The cost benefit analysis being conducted by
EPA will not change the TMDLs'' outcomes or--in regard to
outcomes or implementation. Frankly, in my opinion, prejudging
the facts will be ignored.
So, my first question is, why does this Administration
continue to push through these enormously impactful
regulations--and make no mistake that TMDL is a regulation--
without performing basic economic and social analysis of the
impacts?
Ms. Sutley. The President has committed us to enact
regulations in a cost-effective and sensible way. It is
reflected in his executive order on regulatory review. I can't
speak to the specific circumstances with EPA, but I would be
happy to look into it.
Mr. Thompson. Well, you referenced in your testimony,
though, specifically the executive order on Chesapeake Bay. And
to show that we do have good bipartisanship, my friend from
California, I think, was the one that talked about putting the
cart before the horse. And it seems to me cost benefit analysis
would be done before you drive out enormously impactful
regulations. And so, you know, I really--I know what the
President says, but I want to see that line up with the actions
of the Administration.
My follow-up question is why even do such an analysis if it
has no impact on the regulations being forced on the States?
Ms. Sutley. Well, the Chesapeake Bay is a very important
watershed for the region and for the country. And the executive
order was focused on trying to get the Federal agency working
with the States to try to make some progress to addressing the
health of the Chesapeake Bay, and that there--an emphasis on
working with all of the--not only working with the States, but
all the affected stakeholders in the region.
And so, the--and EPA and other agencies working very
closely--EPA working very closely with the Department of
Agriculture in reaching out into the agricultural communities
to try to find solutions that work for everyone.
Mr. Thompson. Well, and I appreciate that. But when--you
know, and I like being a team player, that has been important
to me throughout my whole life, professionally and personally.
But when I am coming together with a team, unless I am working
with a group of carpenters, I don't bring a hammer. And that is
what the Obama Administration has brought to this ``teamwork,''
to the States.
And so, I mean, how do you justify the Obama Administration
having no problem coming down hard with the hammer, but provide
no funding to the public and to the States for this compliance,
based on a cost benefit analysis that has not been completed
yet, and that the EPA has acknowledged that--in communications
that I have had with them in my respective Subcommittee
chairmanship, that they are not even going to consider, in
terms of the TMDLs?
Ms. Sutley. Well, again, I think that, clearly, the health
of the Chesapeake Bay depends on everyone working together.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I would invite you up to the
Pennsylvania Fifth District. You know, our agriculture
community--our kids still swim in those streams.
Local watersheds are important. And if the local watersheds
are clean, you know, I can't account for much of what goes on
into the Chesapeake Bay, hundreds of miles away. So we are not
here talking about a commitment to a national treasure, which
is what the Chesapeake Bay is, we are talking about a failed
approach to policy that is based on a hammer, and really a
total lack of--and I am running out of time, so one last
question.
Since the States have been egregiously hurt by this
Administration's failure to conduct cost benefit analysis, or
even worse, even worse, prejudging that they are not going to
use the findings in the TMDLs, perhaps the States are better
positioned to make honest environmental impact determinations.
And as Chair of Environmental Quality, I would ask you your
thoughts on that.
Ms. Sutley. Well, as I said, I can't speak to the specifics
with EPA, but I would be happy to follow up on you.
But the States are obviously a very important part of how
we are going to improve our environment. And it is important
that we at CEQ and others work closely with the States on these
important issues.
Mr. Thompson. Right. And my time has expired, but I would
also offer that I think the folks in the States probably care
more about the environment of their respective States than what
agencies in Washington do. So it is like let's let them have
primacy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii. Ms. Hanabusa is
recognized.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Sutley, when you
began your opening statement, you spoke about one of the goals
of the CEQ is the improving of the efficiency and the
effectiveness of the NEPA process. And in reviewing your
testimony, what caught my eye is basically statements found at
page three and four of your testimony, where you spoke, in
particular, about the ability to fast-track. And in the
situation of the ARA funding, how you basically expedited the
NEPA process, whether that be through some sort of EA process,
or EIS process.
Can you explain to me exactly how this expedited--I think
you call it permitted for infrastructure projects, how that is
working, and how the pilot is actually functioning right now?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you. We believe that there is both
opportunity and real commitment to make progress, to make NEPA
work better. It has been a real focus for CEQ in a number of
areas. We have issued guidance since I became Chair to clarify
for agencies where there are flexibilities in NEPA that they
can take advantage of, and you reference the Recovery Act. We
found that the vast, vast majority of Recovery Act projects
completed their NEPA on time, and were able to deliver the
projects on time.
And so, we have been working in a number of different
areas, through setting up with agencies, interagency rapid
response teams to ensure that agencies are focused on high-
priority projects. The President issued a memorandum last
August, directing agencies particularly to focus on high-
priority infrastructure projects, to track those, and to work
on expediting the approvals of that.
And just yesterday I signed some additional NEPA guidance,
again to point out to agencies where there are opportunities
for efficiencies in the NEPA process.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, one of the issues, as I recall, the
ARRA, or what we call the stimulus legislation, was that the
projects that were being, I guess, done by the state levels,
because that is where the basic authority went, to the
respective Governors--was the fact that the projects themselves
had to be technically shovel-ready. So if they are shovel-
ready, I assume by that--and something that you just said is
that the NEPA compliance--I guess whether Environmental
assessment or a FONSI or something--has been complied with
already.
So I am trying to understand how then do you step in and
accelerate that process? And, more importantly than that, you
know, what authority do you see yourself having the ability to
somehow modify NEPA, which is an existing law? Because on page
four, where you talk about this January project with the DoT,
January 2012, a pilot project to cut costs and fast track, I am
trying to see how the NEPA process has been modified in what
you are doing, if it has been modified at all.
Ms. Sutley. Well, to the Recovery Act, what we found--and
we reported to Congress quarterly on NEPA and the Recovery
Act--that about 96 percent of the projects, the Recovery Act
projects, used categorical exclusions, which is the sort of
lightest touch of NEPA in evaluating those--in complying with
NEPA and evaluating those projects, and that only one percent
of those projects required an environmental impact statement,
and those were completed.
CEQ has authority under NEPA, basically, to help the
agencies comply with NEPA, that, by and large, compliance with
NEPA is done by the agencies, but that CEQ interprets both the
statute and CEQ's own regulations, and provides advice to
agencies on how to interpret NEPA.
So, in the example that you referenced, we have set up this
pilot program to try to look at, basically, best NEPA
practices, where agencies have--use techniques, whether it is
through using information technology or bringing stakeholders
in early to help to expedite the NEPA process. And we have been
working with the Department of Transportation on a--what is a
big project that involves a number of States and a number of
different jurisdictions to help bring all of that together, to
make sure that we are both meeting the environmental needs and
helping make sure this project goes through.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My time is up, but I
would like to request that the Chair provide us in writing
exactly how the process is working, what evaluation. And I am
also curious as to whether or not there have been legal
challenges to whatever they may have done, in terms of waiving
the NEPA process, or making determinations that it could go
into this special category. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I think that is a good request. I would hope
that the Chairwoman would follow up on that. To all the
Committee, I might add.
Ms. Sutley. Happy to.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Sutley,
for being here. Part of your obligation under CEQ is to issue
and develop procedures, regulations. Can you tell me--just give
me a number--how many new regulations you put forward since the
Obama Administration was elected?
Ms. Sutley. Well, we have not put any new regulations
forward. What we----
Mr. Tipton. You put forward no new policies?
Ms. Sutley. We have put----
Mr. Tipton. Or suggested any?
Ms. Sutley. We put through a number of guidance documents
to----
Mr. Tipton. How many new regulations or rules has that
added up to, do you know?
Ms. Sutley. I think we have issued----
Mr. Tipton. Ultimately, through all the agencies?
Ms. Sutley. Through all the agencies?
Mr. Tipton. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Sutley. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Tipton. Can you get us a number for that? I think it
would be interesting. We have heard testimony that if we stack
up all the regulations that have come into place since this
Administration took office, it stacks over 13 feet tall. I
would be interested to know what kind of role you played in
that.
Ms. Sutley. We would be happy to follow up with you on
that.
Mr. Tipton. You know--and I would like that. You know, you
have a draft policy here on draft Ocean Policy. And when we
read through this, we find that you are discussing about inland
waters hundreds of miles away impacting our oceans that are
going on.
This Administration, as you are probably aware, has some
policies that, in Colorado, are inhibiting our ability to be
able to get in and to harvest out and treat dead and standing
timber in our areas which, when that catches fire, is going to
greatly impact our water, and probably ultimately go down--
looking at your policy for the oceans--as well.
But when I am looking at this I guess what really kind of
disturbs me when we are looking at increased regulations and
further tentacles of government going in--no one disputes
wanting clean water, a good and health environment, but you are
including forestry, animal feed lots that you are going to
start checking. What kind of cost analysis are you doing on
this?
Ms. Sutley. Well, what we are trying to do is focus the
agencies on understanding the connections. So, as I said, we
don't anticipate there being new regulations there. And these
draft implementation policies are out for public comment right
now, and we hope to get feedback on--from everyone on some of
the areas that we have highlighted.
Mr. Tipton. And there will be no new regulations that will
come off of this.
Ms. Sutley. That is not my intention.
Mr. Tipton. That is not your intention. OK. Good.
You know, today we are going--Representative Gosar and I
have a bill on the Floor of the House here. It is a small
regulation Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of
2012. This is aimed, in large part, at streamlining some of the
regulatory processes out of NEPA. During legislative Committee
hearings on this committee bill we heard testimony from rural
and manmade pipeline companies that are putting in--trying to
put in these projects. Their cost was $20,000 to install a
small hydro unit. By the time NEPA came into the equation, that
jumped up $50,000 additional cost on that. Our bill will be
addressing that. This cost has rendered many of these projects
economically unfeasible. And, as a result, existing regulatory
framework discourages investment in renewable energy.
What I would like to know is what is the Council doing,
from your end, to address other areas? We are addressing one
with legislation today. Are you trying to streamline these
processes?
Ms. Sutley. Well, as I said, we have issued guidance to
agencies to point out where there are flexibilities in NEPA.
And even our own regulations say that the purpose of NEPA is
not to foster paperwork, it is to get to better decisions. So--
--
Mr. Tipton. Is the goal to reduce costs? Because you just
commented that the President wants the rules to be ``a cost-
effective and a sensible way.'' Cost-effective to whom?
Ms. Sutley. Well, as I said, we have been working to focus
on infrastructure projects, on job-creating infrastructure
projects, tried to work with the agencies to streamline their
reviews of those kinds of projects. And----
Mr. Tipton. Are you aware that some of the policies have
increased--we have families right now that are struggling to be
able to keep a roof over their head. And because of regulatory
policy, their water bills are going up, their electric bills
are going up, all because of regulatory policy, and they are
unable to feed their kids.
Ms. Sutley. As I said, we are trying to look at all the
ways that we can help agencies to understand where there are
flexibilities under NEPA, and providing guidance for them,
working with them through these rapid response teams and
through these pilot projects, where we are trying to show where
there are best practices, to help to reduce the time and the
cost of environmental reviews.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt.
Dr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Chair
Sutley, for coming. There is lots to talk about, but I would
like to look at two topics, to give you a chance to elaborate
on some of what you have already said--your role in the ARRA
and NEPA expedition, and also the Climate Adaption Task Force.
Our colleagues--actually, one of them--pressed you on what
your background was in business. I would just point out that he
and anyone who cares about these things should want a vigorous
NEPA process, because through that process all the stakeholders
get to weigh in. And so I think that is what you have been
trying to do.
It seems to me that several million dollars in your budget
is a bargain for this country, in what--the kinds of
coordination that you provide, and specifically the ARRA. You
know, you have surveyed what happened in the various projects
there, and found nearly 200,000 NEPA reviews were completed
expeditiously. Could you explain a little bit what value added
CEQ brought to that process?
The ARRA, despite claims from the other side, has been
demonstrated to be an economic success, a real economic
success. It seems to me that it is also an environmental
success. To what extent did you help make that happen?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you for the question. We have--one
of the things that the ARRA required was that we report
regularly to Congress on NEPA and the Recovery Act, and we
provided those reports which showed, again, that--as you
noted--hundreds of thousands of projects, most of them, were--
could use categorical exclusions to comply with NEPA, which
is--which, again, the lightest touch environmental review,
because they have very little impact on the environment, and we
recognize that.
We also saw documented in those reports a number of areas
where the NEPA process itself helped to make the projects
either go faster, or ended up with better projects. And that--I
think we have seen throughout the history, the 40-plus-year
history of NEPA, where the engagement of the public early on,
where the focus on having the agencies understand and
communicate the environment effects of proposed Federal actions
has resulted in better projects. And so we saw that throughout
the Recovery Act.
And we also work very closely with the agencies, to make
sure that they were--that their NEPA procedures were--you know,
applied the right level of analysis to the kinds of Recovery
Act projects. So that--we believe that most--and the numbers
show that the vast, vast majority of Recovery Act projects were
covered by categorical exclusions.
Dr. Holt. Well, thank you. Let me turn, then, briefly to
the Climate Adaptation Task Force. There is a new article in
Science Magazine on the geological record of ocean
acidification, which points up a dimension of our climate
change, the human emission of carbon into the atmosphere, it is
changing the acid, the acidity of the ocean, with probably
devastating effects.
And the point of this article is, well, first, that the
ocean, which has really been a metaphor for vastness, for
infinity, for limitless over the years, is really quite finite,
and we are changing it. And we are changing it at a pace
greater than has ever been observed over several hundred
million years of geological record.
The Washington Post today has an editorial on this subject
that says, ``Scientists cannot and need not be definitive about
exactly what will happen and when all over the earth. As ever
with climate change, there is a range of risks involving mind-
bogglingly complex planetary systems that scientists can
attempt to anticipate. The point is there are enough dangers of
such magnitude and probability that humans should invest in
reasonable policies to avoid them.''
Isn't that the point of the Climate Adaptation Task Force?
Sorry, I leave you no time to respond. Yes or no?
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Dr. Holt. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Holt. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from Guam is recognized, Ms.
Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning, Chairman Sutley, and thank you
for your testimony this morning. I am going to focus more on
the territories in the Pacific Islands, since we don't talk too
much about them. And I know my colleague is with me on this.
The citizens in Guam and the other Pacific Islands have a vital
interest in protecting ocean and coastal resources, since
naturally we are surrounded by the ocean.
However, administrative efforts frequently do not extend
out to our territories. For example, in June of 2011, a
National Ocean Policy listening session in the State of Hawaii
was provided as a video conference to Guam. But due to
technical issues, the attendees in Guam were not able to fully
participate in the conference. And, as far as I know, there has
never been a follow-up.
How can we ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the
creation and implementation of the national policy? And, in
addition to the regional planning bodies, can you please
describe other ways that local stakeholders can have input on
actions taken under the National Ocean Policy?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you for the question. And we
apologize for the technical trouble in getting residents of
Guam involved in that particular listening session. But one of
the key aspects of the National Ocean Policy is to engage the
public. And we will certainly be happy to follow up with you
and discuss further ways that we can ensure that residents of
the territories have the opportunity to participate. Because
for this to work, we really do need the participation of all
the stakeholders and the public in this process.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I really
feel that the territories are very important to our country.
Also, another question. The draft Implementation Plan
states that 4 of the 9 regional planning bodies will be
established by 2013, while the remaining 5 will not be
established until 2015. How will priority among the regions be
established, and how will the local members of the councils be
determined?
Ms. Sutley. Well, we are--as to the membership of the
councils, we are working on that right now. We want to ensure
that there is adequate representation of all the governments
involved in that. And in terms of the priorities, it is really
in dialogue with the regions to figure out who is ready to go,
and where there needs to be more groundwork laid.
So, the idea--there are some areas that have proceeded out
at the state level or at the regional level. We are working on
a number of these issues, for example, in New England, where
there has been a lot of work done. So, you know, they are
likely to proceed faster than some of the other regions, but
that is really something that we will determine working with
the governments in each region.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you. Now, as you know, Guam
provides an important military presence in the Pacific region.
And often we are forced to choose between the environment and
security, although I do not believe this is always necessary.
Does the National Ocean Policy consider national security
interests in the planning process?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, absolutely, it does. We have, from the
very beginning, had very active engagement from both the
civilian and military side of the Department of Defense, as
well as the Coast Guard. And we recognize that we need to work,
again, closely with the governments throughout the coastal
regions to ensure that we are balancing all of these interests.
Ms. Bordallo. And one further question I have. One of the
tenants of the NOP is to improve access to data gathered by
Federal programs. I applaud the launch of the oceandata.gov web
portal. Now, can you provide any information on improving
access to this information beyond the web portal? Is there any
movement to create a Pacific regional data portal?
Ms. Sutley. I will have to get back to you on that,
Congresswoman Bordallo, but we will be happy to follow up with
you on that.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Sutley. And I
yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has yielded back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
ask one. Where do you get your money to run your operation?
Ms. Sutley. We are appropriated money by Congress.
Mr. Young. Directly to?
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Young. Where is the National Ocean Policy coming from,
the money?
Ms. Sutley. Well, we are working on some specific responses
to the questions from the Chairman on that, but we are
largely----
Mr. Young. Let's get to the quick, now. Where do you get
your money? How do you get paid, and where do you get your
money?
Ms. Sutley. CEQ comes through the Interior appropriations,
and----
Mr. Young. CEQ gives it to you directly, there is no
understanding, you know, how it is going to be spent?
Ms. Sutley. Well, we develop our budgets, as all agencies
do. We are----
Mr. Young. Who do you file the budget with, the Congress?
Or is it filed with the other group, Interior?
Ms. Sutley. No. For the Council on Environmental Quality--I
am sorry if I am not understanding your question--Council on
Environmental Quality, we are part of the Interior
appropriations bill. We have a separate line item for the
Council on Environmental Quality.
Mr. Young. Just one line item? All right, I am still--we
will find out where that--and, Mr. Chairman, thank you for
asking that question, too, because I am--the National--the
draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan notes that the
ecosystem-based management section--that a pilot project will
help identify what, if any, changes may be needed to existing
statutory and regulatory mandates and requirements.
At the last hearing you stated the National Ocean Policy
would not result in any regulations. This implies there will be
new regulation requirements. Which one is it, last testimony or
this testimony?
Ms. Sutley. Well, I think that the purpose of the
implementation plans is to find out how things are working, and
to see where we can make improvements. So we are not intending
to add any regulations.
Mr. Young. Intending? Yes or no, are you going to have new
regulations?
Ms. Sutley. We do not intend to.
Mr. Young. The same section also says that special areas of
high and unique value must be identified. Who will do that
identification, and what criteria will be used?
Ms. Sutley. Well, the marine spatial planning process is
one that has to be done in concert with all of the States in
the various regions, with the governments in the various
region, and with the stakeholders and the public.
Mr. Young. They will be all involved, and nothing will be
defined until they all agree?
Ms. Sutley. That is right. The process is one where we are
trying to bring everyone together to use the best available
information, to understand what the uses of the ocean are, and
what we know about different parts of the ocean.
Mr. Young. OK. The CEQ and other--and many agencies--the
use of a cautionary approach in evaluating environmental
effects and activities. There is an equivalent to precautionary
approach to determine economic effects. Do you look at the
economics, as well as the other facts?
Ms. Sutley. Well, we certainly consider the importance of
the economic activities that are going on in the ocean. We know
they are very important to our country, and we will certainly
keep those very high in our consideration.
Mr. Young. OK. In a recent meeting with one of the
Committee staff, a fisherman from California described efforts
where fishermen voluntarily mapped their fishing grounds for
purposes of planning efforts and, actually, harvesting efforts.
That information was later used by environmental groups to
target closures for specific fisheries.
Why do you think fishermen will benefit from the marine
special planning program? And do you understand why they are
suspicious of this effort?
Ms. Sutley. Well, I certainly understand their concerns,
but we think it is important that they be part of the process,
so they can bring not only their information, but their points
of view to all of these----
Mr. Young. Well, see, ma'am, all due respect, they did do
that, and they submitted their information because they plan
where they are fishing, and yet that was used against them. Why
would anybody participate in your program, if that is going to
occur? Can you stop that?
Ms. Sutley. Well, we think that there is also--we think
that there is the experience--I mean we have seen the
experience in other places, where bringing everybody to the
table early on built trust and helped to result in a better
outcome.
Mr. Young. Well, apparently that did not happen in
California.
Ms. Sutley. Well, I am not that familiar with that specific
incident, but I----
Mr. Young. I would suggest you find out about that, and
find out what occurred, and whether you can stop that type of
activity. Because I know if I was a fisherman, I wouldn't give
you any information.
Ms. Sutley. Understand.
Mr. Young. You know, I used to fish, and I damn well
wouldn't give you any information, because you would use it
against me. And that doesn't gain trust, because--and I really
don't like your organization to begin with, so let's make that
perfectly clear, because I do believe you overreach, you don't
know where your money comes from, you put on policy, and I
don't think the policy is vetted with necessary people that are
directly involved to a point where it makes good sense.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from the Northern Marianas, Mr.
Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
Madam Chair.
In 2008, I think, or--yes, it was late 2008--former
President Bush, for his own reasons, decided to create a 95,000
square miles monument in the Marina Islands, and including the
3 island units. There were--I was in the room when your
predecessor made some promises. None of those promises have
been kept. You got what you wanted, but we got nothing.
So, at this time--I know that there is some conversation
between Congress and your office. I am trying to get at least
one of those, so far. We would really like to urge you, if I
may get your commitment, that we would get that discussion
fully and finally settled. I think we are waiting on a letter
on--because we need to get something, for starters, for our
agreement to this 95,000 square miles of monument.
I won't go to the visitor center yet, because that is
another promise that has really gone nowhere. If we cannot get
a letter, we cannot get a visitor's center, I assure you.
But I am going to ask several other questions. We are--and
just for the record, if anyone really has any doubt on the
science of climate change, I have a place called Micronesia,
and we can come and I will show you the rising waters where--
because I went to school on some of these islands, where homes
that used to be on land, they are now under water.
We are also clearly experiencing greater demands on the use
of the ocean. The current permit-by-permit approach to the way
we manage the ocean is simply not meeting these growing
challenges, and we are seeing increased conflicts: greater
delay and increased cost. Can we afford to simply sit back and
continue with the status quo?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you. The purpose of the National
Ocean Policy is to try to break down some of those silos among
agencies, and that we are working together, coordinating,
working with the governments around our coastal and marine
resources so that we can continue to get the benefit of the
economic activity that is associated with a healthy ocean.
Mr. Sablan. All right. And because I didn't get an answer
to my earlier statement----
Ms. Sutley. I am sorry.
Mr. Sablan [continuing]. Do we have a commitment from you
that we can----
Ms. Sutley. We will work----
Mr. Sablan [continuing]. Get that letter that we are being
asked for----
Ms. Sutley. We are happy to follow up with you on that,
sir.
Mr. Sablan. Follow up is not--I have learned here in three
years in Congress, ``follow up'' doesn't mean anything. Yes or
no?
Ms. Sutley. We will work through this. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sablan. My other question, is coastal and marine
spatial planning in fact regulatory zoning that will restrict
uses?
Ms. Sutley. No, it is not. It is really about sharing
information, about bringing everyone to the table early on, so
that we understand the uses of the ocean and how to ensure that
we continue to get the benefit of those uses in a healthy
ocean.
Mr. Sablan. All right. And so, the improved collaboration
and prioritization on key issues provided in the National Ocean
Policy, exactly what we need in time for shrinking budgets.
Isn't this what we need?
Ms. Sutley. Yes. I think the collaboration among agencies
helps us to leverage the resources that each agency brings to
the table, tries to make sense out of more than 100 laws and
regulations around the ocean, so that we can make better use of
the taxpayer's dollar.
Mr. Sablan. So won't this decrease duplication and waste?
So that--decreased duplication and waste actually helps----
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Sablan [continuing]. With limited funding. And probably
my last question, Mr. Chairman.
Is--do any of the nine priority objectives of the National
Ocean Policy supersede the Regional Fisheries Management
Council jurisdiction, or the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Ms. Sutley. No, they don't.
Mr. Sablan. They don't? And just to follow up on Ms.
Bordallo, the gentlelady from Guam's, statement, they couldn't
get on the VTC is her complaint. We couldn't actually hear the
discussion on the phone. So there was really some mix-up, and I
am sure it will not happen again.
Ms. Sutley. We will----
Mr. Sablan. But I thank you for your commitment, and we
will work on that letter----
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Sablan [continuing]. That we really need as soon as
possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time, and the
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Chairwoman Sutley, thank you for being here
today. I understand that the Council on Environmental Quality
has been involved with the rewrite of the stream buffer zone
rule, as CEQ was to coordinate agency policy discussions based
on the 2009 Memo of Understanding.
My first question is, when precisely did CEQ become
involved with discussions to rewrite the stream buffer zone
rule?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you for the question. We have received
oversight requests. We are working on the answers to those. I
can't give you a precise date, but----
Mr. Johnson. Can you get back to me about when----
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Your Department first became
involved? I asked for this precise date because a Federal
Register notice from June of 2010 stated, ``We had already
decided to change the rule, following the change of
Administration on January 20, 2009.''
Additionally, there are internal OSM documents that state
OSM had already begun developing a revised rule, following the
change of administrations on January 20, 2009.
So, according to internal Administration documents, not
only was the decision made to change the rule upon the change
of the administration, but work had begun on the rewrite when
the administration changed.
Now, you weren't confirmed by the Senate until January 22,
2009, so you might not know if CEQ played any role in the
Administration's original decision to change the rule. But it
would be helpful to know when you and CEQ became involved in
the decision to rewrite the rule.
Ms. Sutley. Try to get----
Mr. Johnson. OK, so you will get back to me on that.
Have you met with Director Pizarchik on the stream buffer
zone rule rewrite? And if so, who else attended those meetings?
Ms. Sutley. I have not.
Mr. Johnson. You have not?
Ms. Sutley. No.
Mr. Johnson. Has anyone in your Department?
Ms. Sutley. I am not aware of that, but I will--we can get
you that----
Mr. Johnson. OK. If you could get back to me on that, I
would appreciate it.
Were you or anyone at CEQ involved or aware of the decision
by OSM to not defend the 2008 stream buffer zone rule against 2
lawsuits filed against the Administration by environmentalist
groups that were ultimately settled?
Ms. Sutley. I personally was not, but again, we can follow
up with you.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Were you or anyone at CEQ involved in or
aware of the decision in which OSM employees directed the
contractors to use false assumptions to show the preferred rule
would not cost as many direct and indirect coal jobs after the
original job loss number appeared in the press reports?
Ms. Sutley. No, I was not, and I am not aware of anyone at
CEQ involved in that.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Were you or anyone at CEQ involved in or
aware of the decision by OSM to end the contract with the
original contracting team, and then to pay them in full when
they told OSM that they would not lie to hide the job loss
numbers?
Ms. Sutley. I was not involved, and I am not aware of
anyone at CEQ being involved.
Mr. Johnson. OK. With that, Mr. Chairman--those are all my
questions--I yield back the remainder of my time. I can yield
my time to Mr. Flores, if he would like it.
The Chairman. Go right ahead.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Ms. Sutley, thank you for joining us today. Got a
series of questions.
The first one has to do with section 6(b) of executive
order 13547, that established the National Ocean Policy in July
of 2010. And this executive order requires that each executive
department, agency, and offices that is required to take
actions under this order shall prepare and make publicly
available an annual report, including the concise description
of the actions taken by the agency in the previous calendar
year to implement the order, a description of written comments
by persons or organizations regarding the agency's compliance
with this order, and the agency's response to such comments.
This committee is not aware of any such annual reports
having been prepared. And so, pursuant to this requirement, has
CEQ prepared and made any such annual report publicly
available?
Ms. Sutley. Not that I am aware of, but we could follow up
with you on that.
Mr. Flores. OK. When you send it, I would like an executive
summary of it, as to what your findings and contents are in
that report.
As the Chair of the CEQ, are you aware--in the capacity of
the Co-Chair on the National Ocean Council, are you aware of
any reports that any of the other agencies have done? You know,
that includes State, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Health and
Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Energy,
Homeland Security, Justice, Environmental Protection Agency,
NASA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of
Management and Budget, National Intelligence Science and
Technology Policy, and the National Science Foundation. Have
any of those issued annual reports, as far as you know?
Ms. Sutley. Offhand, I don't know, but we will follow up
with you.
Mr. Flores. OK, thank you. Quickly, I hope.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And welcome again,
Ms. Sutley, good to see you.
Looking at the budget that you have--and you are now
getting another budget cut--how are you going to be able to
follow up on some of these things? And maybe in that area I am
really puzzled by our embracing in this committee, especially
my colleagues on the other side, repeatedly pass bills to
create exceptions to NEPA, the law designated to ensure that
major Federal actions affecting the environment are
transparent, and that our public, the citizens, the ones
affected, have an opportunity to comment on those actions and
their environmental impact.
And, as Mr. Tipton was mentioning, later today the House
will vote on yet another NEPA exemption, that one on small
conduit hydropower, which I find a little troubling. And does
the Administration oppose these types of exemptions?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you for the question. We believe
that NEPA performs an important purpose, as you said, to engage
the public, involve the public, and provide transparency into
Federal decision-making, and to ensure that Federal agencies
are considering the impacts on the environment on proposed
actions.
We also believe that there is flexibility under the NEPA
statute, that agencies are--under NEPA are to focus their
attention and their resources on the decisions that have the
greatest environmental impact. And we believe the agencies have
done a good job of managing that.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK, and that brings to a point that has
been discussed in the Transportation and Water Subcommittee,
and that is the issue of California's CEQA being more stringent
than NEPA. And that would save NEPA some money, instead of
having to go through the process of verifying the CEQA
projects. Is there anything going on that is going to allow
California to use CEQA and waive NEPA on this particular--since
the requirements are more stringent?
Ms. Sutley. Well, there are some differences between CEQA
and NEPA, in particular with respect to evaluation of
alternatives. Having said that, we have been working closely
with the State of California, as--in looking at some
opportunities to work even better together on NEPA and CEQA,
and for many projects in California. You know, they try to
merge the documents so that you have both an EIS and a----
Mrs. Napolitano. I would love to be able to get some report
on that, Ms. Sutley----
Ms. Sutley [continuing]. But we will follow up.
Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. Simply because they are very
critical.
And in mentioning streamlining, a lot of the conversation
has gone to the cost. There is some costs that sound
exorbitant, but I don't know how long it has gone, although
they are stating in many instances that the process is so long,
that it is so costly, that some people may give up.
In your streamlining, whether it is true or not, are you
looking at cutting not only the cost to the projects, but also
the reduction in time? And how, as you are going out seeking
input, how is that affecting your decision to be able to reach
that?
Ms. Sutley. Well, particularly with respect to highway
projects, we do have some information from the Federal Highway
Administration, that most of their highway-related actions are
covered by categorical exclusions, and that only .3 percent of
highway projects need a full environmental impact statement,
and that not just Federal highways, but----
Mrs. Napolitano. Right. But--I'm sorry, but my time is
running out--but specifically to cutting the cost and cutting
the time frame to be able to process, how are you going to do
that in receiving the input?
Ms. Sutley. We have established with the Department of
Transportation a transportation rapid response team to look at
a number of priority projects that will bring in all of the
stakeholders and the States, as well as all the agencies that
have----
Mrs. Napolitano. OK, that is transportation. What about
water? What about in looking at these conduit hydropower
projects that are being proposed to be able to create
additional power?
Ms. Sutley. Again, it is my understanding that most of
those are already covered by categorical exclusions, which is
the least intensive level of environmental review, and that
provides an opportunity to expedite those projects.
Mrs. Napolitano. But would you favor the waiver of NEPA for
these small conduit under 1.5 megawatt?
Ms. Sutley. No.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reason I am
bringing this question up is we are reviewing your funding
request. And so we have oversight responsibilities, as well as
fiduciary responsibility to take care of the taxes of hard-
working American taxpayers.
And so, let's roll--in order to look at future funding
requests, we need to roll the clock back just a little bit. And
so my question is this. In June of 2011 there was a National
Ocean Policy workshop. How was that funded?
Ms. Sutley. We are in the process of responding to a
request from the Chairman for that information. We are working
on that, and we will get back to the Committee as soon as we
can.
Mr. Flores. OK, did--and I am sorry I wasn't here for that
question. Did it include a request for the number of attendees,
and from which agencies they came, and so forth?
Ms. Sutley. I believe we will provide that information.
Mr. Flores. OK. Is it--did it ask about any non-
governmental funding for the workshop?
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
Mr. Flores. It did? OK, all right. OK. With that, I yield
back to the Chairman.
The Chairman. I--the gentleman yields back his time. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mexico, Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam Chair,
thank you for being with us as well today.
As you know, my State of New Mexico has enormous potential
for solar power development, I think, in the United States,
only second to Arizona. One of the biggest obstacles is
connecting the generation site to markets. There is a proposed
project, SunZia, a transmission line that would connect New
Mexico and Arizona, potentially open up markets into Southern
Colorado and elsewhere, especially with the convergence of a
project we hope to see come to fruition soon with Tres Amigas.
You recognize this project as a part of your Rapid Response
Transmission initiative. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues
want to abolish the financing for projects like SunZia, the
Centennial Clean Line, and TransWest Express. Can you talk
about how your Rapid Response initiative is helping with new
transmission permitting, how these new lines can help address
new transmission needs, and what would happen if the western
area of power financing was abolished?
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you. We believe it is very
important for us to focus on transmission that will connect
renewables and other generation to the demand for that
electricity, that we need to look at our transmission system
and how it can integrate renewables. And also, transmission
obviously provides important benefits, in terms of reliability.
And so, we set up this--established this Transmission Rapid
Response Team, again, to bring all the agencies in who have
some role in the Federal approval of transmission projects. We
work closely with the States, with both the western
interconnect and the eastern interconnect, and we think it is
an important part of our infrastructure going forward, that
will allow us to access low-cost supplies of generation,
including--with renewables.
So, it is an important part of our energy future to--as the
President said, that we need an all-of-the-above energy
strategy that includes developing new sources of energy,
including renewables.
Mr. Lujan. And if the western area power financing was
abolished, do you have a concern that that could hinder these
projects?
Ms. Sutley. Well, I don't have any specific knowledge of
that. But as I said, we think that these are important
projects. These are projects that the States think are
important. And we are working as hard as we can to work with
the States to make sure they go forward.
Mr. Lujan. Appreciate that. And then another area, Madam
Chair, that needs your support and assistance with, and
consideration with, some of the responsibilities that the
Council has in regarding of consideration. There has been some
conversations associated with categorical exclusions with some
projects.
In New Mexico we have one of the oldest forms of governance
associated with adjudication of water. And it is in Southern
Colorado, as in most of New Mexico, and it is an acequias
system--which is spelled a-c-e-q-u-i-a-s--which some people
would describe as ditches, others would describe them as
canals. But they are really unique, and they start at the
headgates. There is compuertas, which are headgates in these
watersheds. And you open them up--and they predate the Forest
Service, predate the U.S. Government. And we have some
challenges associated with how categorical exclusions are
evaluated by those that are administering some of the public
lands policy with the difference of new construction versus
maintenance.
And I would ask that--as we work in the Committee, we have
had some conversations about codifying traditional use access
to public lands, what these acequias mean. We will be following
up with some information to you and to your office,
documentaries talking about acequias. If we can get the team
out to New Mexico to walk in some of these areas firsthand,
there is an acequias that actually runs through my front yard.
Growing up, we--as a community you come together as members
of these acequias. They are called parciantes, where you are
members, and you actually clean those ditches out yourself with
a shovel, with a rake. You cut the weeds, you form the ditch,
and you work collectively to make sure you can get that water
to produce crops, to provide water to your animals. We still
raise sheep where I come from. My grandfather was a sheep
herder.
And so, this is something that is critically important. And
so we are hoping that we might be able to get your support in
this area. And we will definitely be bringing it to your team.
Mr. Chairman, I know this is something that we will be
talking about a little bit later in the Committee associated
with access to some of the public lands. So I appreciate you
bringing us together today, and the support on that endeavor.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you may
know, the State of Florida and its congressional delegation has
serious concerns regarding drilling off the coast of Cuba, and
how a potential accident would affect the United States and our
coastline. And I have been disappointed with the lack of effort
by this Administration to prevent a state sponsor of terrorism
like Cuba to drill approximately 60 to 65 miles off of
Florida's coast, and therefore providing economic aid and
comfort to the Castro dictatorship.
So, I would like to ask you, Chairwoman Sutley, going back
to your field of expertise, the proposed drill sites are very
close to--or even beneath--the Gulf stream. There is limited
information about where pollutants such as spilled oil,
associated drilling products, and chemical dispersants may be
transported in the surface and subsurface ocean, or on the
general effects of oil spills and spill treatments on coral
reefs, oceanic and coastal ecosystems.
There are several Florida universities and research
institutions that have proposed a scientific research agenda
that would provide valuable information necessary to respond
quickly to a spill in the Cuban waters. Many consider it an
early detection system, so to speak, because we can't trust the
Castro regime to notify us when an accident has occurred,
because by the time we find out, it may be too late. The plan
includes baseline assessments of physical and biological
oceanography, toxicity studies on oil and dispersed oil on
organisms and ecosystems, and detailed predictive models of
where spilled oil or other pollutants may be transported, and
what the impacts may be.
Have you heard of, or are you familiar with any of these
proposals from these universities and research organizations?
Ms. Sutley. Personally I am not----
Mr. Rivera. You have not. Maybe, if it is possible, I would
like to arrange a meeting with you and some of their
representatives, so that we can discuss some of these matters,
because I think it is important that, rather than just reacting
to a disaster, we should be working proactively to develop a
plan and coordinate the appropriate agencies with our partners
in academia and the private sector to launch some sort of ocean
monitoring network.
So I appreciate that, Chairwoman Sutley. I hope we can work
together on this.
And I would like to yield my time, I believe, to
Congressman Southerland, Mr. Chairman, with your permission.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you.
Mr. Southerland. I would like to thank my fellow colleague
from Florida for yielding.
Ms. Sutley, I wanted--earlier in your comments you made
reference to how the Administration is working closely with the
States. And there is an issue that is very dear to us in
Florida, and I just want to bring it to your attention, and ask
for your encouragement. The State of Florida, our Legislature
in the State of Florida has been working feverishly on numeric
nutrient criteria legislation. We, our delegation, the Florida
delegation, have--recently wrote a letter to Administrator
Jackson of the EPA, that they would adopt the Florida
standards.
As you may or may not be aware, Florida has recently been
singled out, and we now have to--according to the EPA, they
have promulgated rules that holds Florida to a higher standard
than all other 49 States in the Nation. So we have in some ways
been singled out, and I think that is certainly not democratic,
the way that this has rolled out.
However, there is great bipartisan support. This bill that
came out of the Florida Legislature, unanimous support by
Democrats, Republicans, signed by the Governor, and there is
broad support from the Florida delegation, Members on both
sides of the aisle. So I would like, with your permission, to
hand you a letter that we sent, just ask you, if you would, in
the spirit of the Administration working with the States, this
is certainly something that is important to over 21 million
residents of the State of Florida, and the 67 counties, and I
would appreciate your consideration.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you. I appreciate what an important issue
this is, and I am certainly happy----
Mr. Southerland. Sure.
Ms. Sutley [continuing]. To follow up with you on that.
Thank you.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you. And with the time left, I am
going to yield the balance of that to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Southerland. The final
recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
found that coastal and marine spatial planning in particular
will require--and I quote--``significant initial investment of
both human and financial resources.''
More recently, the draft National Ocean Policy
Implementation Plan noted that as the National Ocean Council
developed actions to include in the draft plan, Federal
agencies were asked to provide information on how ``existing
resources can be repurposed for greater efficiency and
effectiveness.''
So, my question is, as the Co-Chair of the National Ocean
Council, please describe the response of the Federal agencies
on how they plan to reprogram their funding to address this
issue.
Ms. Sutley. Well, we are happy to follow up with specifics,
but I would just say that, as I said, we expect agencies, you
know, to work within their existing resources, that agencies
now--and many Federal agencies--devote significant resources to
the oceans and to ocean resource management, and that the
purpose--and one of the benefits, we think, of the National
Ocean Policy is to help to focus those resources, and also to
leverage resources in--within the agencies.
Mr. Flores. OK. But you will provide a fulsome response to
us on this question?
Ms. Sutley. We will.
Mr. Flores. OK. And when you are doing that, if you would
provide the statutory authority for those agencies to be re-
purposing their funds to do that, if you would.
Ms. Sutley. Yes. As we have said before and to this
committee, we believe that agencies, within their existing
authorities, can--that the activities of the National Ocean
Policy are covered within existing authority.
Mr. Flores. Well, I think----
The Chairman. We will----
Mr. Flores. We have a difference of opinion. Thank you. I
yield back.
The Chairman. We will follow up on that. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here. Before I ask you my question, I just wanted to clear
something up for the record. I think earlier Mr. Young had
raised some concerns about an instance where a fisherman had
shared some information or something that was then used against
them, in their view. And the Committee staff has informed me
that this was actually a state process in California, and not
the National Ocean Policy. And I just want to make sure that
was clarified for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Now, Chair Sutley, thank you very much for being here. I am
very appreciative of the work that you do. It is an incredibly
important role that you play. You take the responsibilities of
your office very seriously, and I think are carrying them out
as the original NEPA envisioned. And I thank you for all the
work that you are doing.
As you know, I am focused a lot of the time on all things
Chesapeake Bay, and I wanted to just ask you a couple of
questions about that. I always like to begin or preface these
questions by reminding people that the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
encompasses six States and the District of Columbia: New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and
the District of Columbia. And there are over 50 districts,
congressional districts, that have tributaries in them that
flow into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
So, certainly those folks have a mutual stake, but the
Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It is the largest
estuary in the country, and there is--that ecosystem is so
fragile that we have to do all we can to make sure that we are
protecting it, we are restoring the health of the Bay over
time. And obviously, the CEQ plays a critical role here. There
are seven agencies, Federal agencies, as you know, that have
different responsibilities pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay
program, to make sure that all the efforts are being
coordinated.
And I would like you to just give me your view, sort of
from where you sit as Chair of CEQ, on how those efforts are
going, in terms of good coordination, whether we are making the
kinds of strides that you and I would like to see with respect
to the Chesapeake Bay.
Ms. Sutley. Well, thank you. And we agree, the Chesapeake
Bay is a national treasure. It is, as you noted, the largest
estuary, very important to the region and to the Nation, as a
whole, and that to protect the Chesapeake Bay and to restore
its health, it takes the effort of not just the seven Federal
agencies, but all the States within the watershed. And the
efforts underway right now are really to coordinate Federal
activities and to work closely with the States to ensure that
we are making progress.
And for example, we are seeing some improvements, both in
terms of some of the important fisheries and--shellfisheries in
the Bay, as well as a reduction in the pollution loads, some of
the pollution loads in the Bay, and I think some very important
sort of break-throughs in working, for example, between EPA and
the Department of Agriculture, working with the agricultural
community within the watershed on voluntary programs and best
practices to keep run-off from reaching the Bay.
So, obviously, a lot of work to be done. And what it is
going to take is the continued focus of the agencies, and
certainly the continued focus of the States.
Mr. Sarbanes. One of the things that we are glad to see is
that there is an ambition now to collect metrics on a more
regular basis, in terms of the health of the Bay. We used to
set out these programs to restore and protect the Bay, where
you would have kind of a 10-year goal and, you know, at 9 years
everyone is scrambling around to see what had happened. But we
now have the opportunity--frankly, because there is so much
more information at our fingertips--to take a look on a more
regular basis, so we know whether we are on the right track,
and to make adjustments if we need to, and make sure that all
the agencies and partners that are in this effort are
coordinating with one another.
And I do also want to thank you, because I think CEQ and
certainly you and others in the Federal agencies that are
working on the Chesapeake Bay have recognized as well how
important it is to establish a partnership between the Federal
Government, and not just state and local governments, but with
the citizenry in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
And my view--and we have talked about this before--is
ultimately the health of the Bay will depend on reaching a
tipping point where the 17 million residents of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed, who may collectively have some bad habits right
now when it comes to looking after the Bay and water quality
and so forth, develop good habits. And there is so much desire
out there on the part of ordinary citizens to step forward and
embrace these efforts with the environment and with the
Chesapeake Bay, that I think it holds great promise.
And I thank you for your continuing interest in that, and
the work that you are doing at CEQ. With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Before
we close, I just want to briefly yield to the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Holt.
Dr. Holt. I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair. Chair
Sutley, I would like to just ask you one more question, and ask
you to get back to me.
In your written testimony you describe the work being done
by the Rapid Response Team for Transmission, focusing on seven
pilot project--transmission projects which, when built, are
intended to integrate energy, renewable energy, into the grid.
The Susquehanna-Roseland Line, one of these projects, would
run through parts of New Jersey, including park land and other
environmentally important areas--national park land, I should
say.
Some of my constituents have expressed concern that the
line would, in fact, carry electricity from coal-fired plants,
primarily. Although I don't expect you to be personally
familiar with the details of that project, I would like to ask
you to look into it, and reply to us on whether this is really
a wise way to handle the project.
The Chairman. If you could do that in writing, I would
certainly appreciate that.
Ms. Sutley. I would be happy to do that.
Dr. Holt. Thank you.
The Chairman. And finally, in my opening statement, in the
letter that I had sent you asking for documents, you said you
needed more time. I certainly recognize that, but we do want to
get the information. And to follow up with Mr. Johnson, you
said you would get back to him on the stream buffer in a timely
manner also.
I would like if you could get back to us by the end of the
month. That gives you a whole month. We have obviously had a
time--if you could commit to doing that, I would certainly
appreciate that.
Ms. Sutley. I will consult with my staff to make sure we
can do it, but we will make every effort to do so.
The Chairman. And communicate with us on that time frame.
Ms. Sutley. Yes, absolutely.
The Chairman. And finally, can we get a commitment also
that you will provide a detailed spending plan for how much
each agency is spending on the National Ocean Policy in Fiscal
Year 2012, and the budget request for each agency that will
participate in the National Ocean Policy for Fiscal Year 2013?
Can we get a commitment that you will provide us with a
detailed spending plan of that?
Ms. Sutley. We will be happy to follow up with you on
exactly what information you would like, and we will----
The Chairman. Well, it is pretty simple. Agencies are
participating in the Ocean Policy, and we want to know how much
they are spending in that regard. It is nothing more
complicated than that. What it was in 2012 and what the request
is in 2013.
Ms. Sutley. We will do our best.
The Chairman. OK. Well, I hope you do better than your
best; I hope we get the information.
Ms. Sutley. Thank you.
The Chairman. That is why we are having this hearing. I
mean, after all, this is a budget hearing. And this is an issue
that clearly has a lot of interest of Members, really, on both
sides. So that is why we would like to have that information.
Ms. Sutley. And we appreciate that, and appreciate your
continued interest in this.
The Chairman. OK. And what I would like is a commitment
from you--is that, you know, my staff will be in touch with
you. ``How are you going? Give us a status report.''
Ms. Sutley. Yes, absolutely.
The Chairman. OK? Will you commit to that?
Ms. Sutley. Yes.
The Chairman. All right. With that, I want to thank all
Members for participating. As usual, there are always follow-up
questions that comes from testimony. And so, if you could
respond in writing to whatever Members in a timely manner, I
would certainly appreciate it.
Ms. Sutley. Yes, we certainly will do so.
The Chairman. With that, Chairman Sutley, thank you very
much for being here, and the time you have taken. With no
further business before the Committee, the Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]