[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1165-S1166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Craig, Mr. Helms, 
        Mr. Crapo, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 352. A bill to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
to require that Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county 
and local governments on environmental impact statements; to the 
Committee on Environmental and Public Works.


          state and local government participation act of 1999

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Nickles, 
Craig, Helms, Crapo, Grams, and Enzi, to introduce the State and Local 
Government Participation Act of 1999 which would amend the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This bill is designed to guarantee 
that federal agencies identify state, county and local governments as 
cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning 
responsibilities under NEPA.
  NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a 
proposed federal action are considered and minimized by the federal 
agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate 
public participation in the decision making process on these federal 
activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to 
the proposed action.
  Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a 
real problem in Wyoming and many states throughout the nation. A 
statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the 
federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and 
cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public 
planning process on federal lands, NEPA now serves to delay action and 
shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these 
federal lands for their existence.
  The State and Local Government Participation Act is designed to 
provide for greater input from state and local governments in the NEPA 
process. This measure would simply guarantee that state, county and 
local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing 
land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for 
voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning 
process, to often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local 
governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. 
Unfortunately, many federal agencies have become so engrossed in 
examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on federal 
land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live 
near and depend on these areas for their economic survival.
  Mr. President, states and local communities must be consulted and 
included when proposed actions are being taken on federal lands in 
their state. Too often, federal land managers are more concerned about 
the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, D.C. 
or New York City than the people who actually live in the state where 
the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, 
comments and input of state and local communities is vital for the 
proper management of federal lands in the West. The State and Local 
Government Participation Act of 1999 will begin to address this 
troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in 
proposed decision that will affect their lives.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing 
the State and Local Government Participation Act.
  This legislation would amend the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) to provide the opportunity for State, local, and county agencies 
to participate in land management decisions by identifying them as 
cooperating agencies in the NEPA process.
  NEPA was passed in 1969 to, among other things, ``declare a national 
policy which will encourage harmony between man and his environment.'' 
I support the intent of NEPA, to protect our public resources from 
environmental degradation. However, in the last twenty years, the NEPA 
process has become a very time consuming and cumbersome public process. 
In almost every instance, an Environmental Impact Statement or 
Environmental Assessment must be completed under NEPA before any action 
can take place on the public lands.
  My state, Idaho, is 63 percent federal land, and management of those 
lands is of vital importance, especially to the communities that are 
economically dependent on the public lands. In far too many instances, 
land management decisions are being made without allowing those most 
affected by a land management decision or in many cases, those most 
knowledgeable about the resource, to play a meaningful role in the NEPA 
process.
  In the Pacific Northwest, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management are currently working on a comprehensive ecosystem 
management plan for the Columbia River Basin, the Interior Columbia 
Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP). This plan, in the form of a 
draft EIS, has been in the works for four years at an expense of more 
than $40 Million. County governments and state officials in my state 
feel alienated by the process to date. The situation has gotten so bad 
that in last year's omnibus appropriations act, I worked to have report 
language encouraging the administration to include affected state and 
county governments in this process as cooperating agencies.
  I would submit that every western Senator has at least one horror 
story involving a public land managing agency that ran roughshod over 
the local government in the NEPA process. Rather than legislating that 
Federal agencies must work with the local governments on a case-by-case 
basis, this bill would provide the opportunity to fix a problem that 
has arisen with the original NEPA legislation.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the State and 
Local Government Participation Act of 1999. I would like to thank 
Senator Thomas for introducing this simple, but very important piece of 
legislation.
  As Senator Thomas said in his introductory remarks, this legislation 
would make state and county governments ``cooperating agencies'' in the 
National Environmental Policy Act process. For example, when the Forest 
Service decides to undertake a timber sale, it will have to by law 
consult and obtain the input of state and county governments during the 
NEPA process. Current law, however, only requires the federal 
government to consult with other federal agencies.
  The underlying concept of this legislation is something most people 
would assume already takes place. Average Americans assume that the 
federal government considers state and local governments partners in 
all land-use and environmental decisions. After all, it is an 
established fact that local citizens and officials can best meet local 
problems with local solutions. And in those matters, people expect the 
federal government to help out where needed and take the lead where 
appropriate. But average Americans, unfortunately, often aren't aware 
of the complete picture.
  Too often, the federal government adopts its ``I know best'' 
philosophy and ignores the input of local officials or even excludes 
them from the decision making process. One of the first things locally 
elected officials in the northern part of my state--an area which deals 
with the National Environmental Policy Act regularly--say to me when we 
sit down to talk is that the federal government doesn't care about 
their needs. They feel the federal government, be it the Forest 
Service, Park Service, or EPA, just doesn't seem to realize that 
counties are having a tough time making ends meet and providing basic 
services to its residents in an era of increased land-regulation and 
decreased logging, mining, and access. And when they show you the 
numbers and make their case, it is impossible to disagree with them.
  There are a number of counties in northern Minnesota which are 
predominantly federally owned. St. Louis County is 62 percent federally 
owned, Cook County is 82 percent federally owned, and Lake County is 92 
percent federally owned. They are home to the Superior National Forest 
and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Not far away is 
Voyageurs National Park and not far from that is the Chippewa National 
Forest. Not surprisingly, they are often placed in the

[[Page S1166]]

middle of many disputes over land-uses. They continue to see their PILT 
payments funded at barely 50 percent of authorized amounts. They 
continue to witness more and more restrictions on the use of lands 
within their counties and the Forest Services declining timber sales. 
And they continue to see their populations declining as a result of 
lost economic opportunities. They deserve to be heard when the federal 
government is going to take actions in their communities.
  Mr. President, it is clear that in the last half of this century 
power has shifted from our nation's cities and states to Washington, 
DC. No one disputes that. And while many of us would like to see that 
shift back the other way, it may take some time to get it done. But 
what we should all be able to agree upon, is that locally elected 
officials should have a seat at the table and should be treated as 
equals and as partners by federal agencies. They know what is happening 
on their land and they know the people who will be impacted by changes 
in the law. They also know what the impact will be on a county or state 
budget. But most importantly, Mr. President, county and state officials 
are closer to the people. Their phone numbers are actually in the phone 
book and they aren't a long distance call away. They answer their door 
when someone comes knocking. And they aren't a bureaucrat hidden away 
in Washington, DC, making one size fits all policy decisions.
  As I stated earlier, I think those people deserve a role in the NEPA 
process and I think the American people would agree. I urge my 
colleagues to protect their state and local government's right to 
participate by supporting this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______