[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 38 (Thursday, March 6, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2220-H2236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESPONSIBLY AND PROFESSIONALLY INVIGORATING DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2641.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 501 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2641.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1155
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2641) to provide for improved coordination of agency actions in
the preparation and adoption of environmental documents for permitting
determinations, and for other purposes, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
5\1/2\ years after the financial crisis struck in 2008, America
remains in a jobs recession. Millions of Americans would call it a jobs
depression.
The RAPID Act responds to America's urgent need for new jobs with
critical help. According to testimony received by the Regulatory Reform
Subcommittee, the RAPID Act would help to stimulate the creation of 3
million jobs.
In an economy in which the labor force participation rate has reached
record lows, there is little more urgent jobs legislation that Congress
could pass than the RAPID Act.
The jobs the RAPID Act would create, moreover, are high-wage, highly-
skilled construction jobs. This is not just sure-fire legislation to
create millions of jobs; it is sure-fire legislation to create higher
wages for hardworking Americans.
Why do we need legislation to create these jobs? The reason is
simple. Since before the financial crisis began and up to this day, the
Federal Government's outdated and overly burdensome environmental
review process has kept legions of jobs and workers waiting too long
for approval from Federal bureaucrats.
The United States now ranks a dismal 34th in the world in the
procedures, time, and costs needed to obtain governmental approval of
new construction permits.
The heart of the problem lies with delay in the completion of reviews
under the National Environmental Policy Act, commonly known as NEPA.
When NEPA was first implemented, neither Congress nor the executive
branch contemplated that the NEPA process would bog down responsible
Federal permitting.
On the contrary, when Congress debated the issue, it talked about
timeframes like 90 days to complete review. In 1981, the Council on
Environmental Quality, or CEQ, thought all review could be done in a
year.
A recent study, however, found that the average length of time to
complete just one part of the process, the preparation of an
environmental impact statement, was 3.4 years and growing. Examples
abound of cases in which it takes far longer.
The port of Savannah, Georgia, for example, has seen a potential
dredging project mired in review for over 13 years, with no end to
review in sight. Cape Wind, a significant wind energy project in
Massachusetts, took 12 years to reach the end of review.
Making matters worse, many projects that finally emerge from the
administrative review process only become bogged down again in lengthy
litigation challenging agencies' permitting decisions.
Clearly, the system needs to be reformed. Vice President Biden summed
it up dramatically during a visit to the Savannah port in 2013 when he
said:
What are we doing? We're arguing about whether or not to
deepen this port. It's time we get moving. I'm sick of this.
Folks, this isn't a partisan issue. It's an economic issue.
How do we get moving? The key is to find the right balance between
economic progress and the proper level of analysis. The RAPID Act
strikes this balance. It does not force agencies to approve or deny any
projects. It simply ensures that the process agencies use to make
permitting decisions, and the timeline for subsequent litigation, are
transparent, logical, and efficient.
To do that, the RAPID Act draws upon established definitions and
concepts from existing NEPA regulations. It also draws upon commonsense
suggestions from across the political spectrum, including from the
President's Jobs Council and the administration's Council on
Environmental Quality.
Most significantly, the RAPID Act sets hard deadlines, including an
18-month maximum deadline for an environmental assessment and a 36-
month maximum deadline for an environmental impact statement.
{time} 1200
It cracks down on prolonged lawsuits by establishing a 180-day
statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging permitting decisions
and limiting claims to those presented during the permit's public
notice-and-comment process, and it consolidates who manages the process
by empowering lead agencies to manage environmental reviews efficiently
from start to finish in order to avoid waste and duplication of effort
among bureaucratic agencies.
In many respects, the bill is modeled on the permit streamlining
sections of Congress' SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 transportation legislation,
which commanded bipartisan support. A study by the Federal Highway
Administration found that this legislation has cut the time for
completing an environmental impact statement nearly in half.
President Obama, himself, moreover, strongly supports permit
streamlining consistent with the recommendations of his Jobs Council.
In his 2014 State of the Union Address, the President expressed his
desire ``to slash bureaucracy and to streamline the permitting process
for key projects so that we can get more construction workers on the
job as fast as possible.''
Congress should transform the President's rhetoric into action and
enact this legislation to streamline permitting on all federally funded
and federally permitted construction projects.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) for his
leadership on this issue, and I urge all of my colleagues to support
this critical legislation and cut down the time it takes America's
workers to see a real jobs recovery.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2014.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 2641, the
Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act
of 2013, as ordered reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary on July 31, 2013. There are certain provisions in
the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
In order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.
However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding that
forgoing consideration of the bill does not alter or diminish
the jurisdiction of the Committee with respect to the
appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional
claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or
similar legislation. I request you urge the Speaker to name
members of the Committee to any conference committee named to
consider such provisions.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding and acknowledging our jurisdictional
interest, and would request that you insert our exchange of
letters on this matter into the committee report on H.R. 2641
and the Congressional Record during any consideration of this
bill on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster,
Chairman.
[[Page H2221]]
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 27, 2014.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster, Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 2641, the ``Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating
Development Act of 2013,'' which was ordered reported
favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 31, 2013.
It is my understanding that the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure has Rule X jurisdiction over portions of
H.R. 2641. I am, therefore, most appreciative of your
decision to forego consideration of the bill so that it may
move expeditiously to the House floor. I acknowledge that
although you are waiving formal consideration of the bill,
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is in no
way waiving its jurisdiction over the subject matter
contained in the bill. In addition, if a conference is
necessary on this legislation, I will support any request
that your committee be represented therein.
Finally, I am pleased to include your letter and this reply
letter memorializing our mutual understanding in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 2641.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2641, the so-called Responsibly
and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013.
Contrary to the bill's short title, H.R. 2641 would result in
confusion and delay in the review and permitting process for certain
construction projects. Most importantly, it would pose serious threats
to public health and safety. By carving out a separate environmental
review process for construction projects, which this bill doesn't even
define, by the way, this bill would effectively create two different
environmental review processes for the same project: one that applies
to the construction phase of the project, whatever that means under the
bill, and one that applies to every other phase of the project.
For instance, the bill's requirements would apply to building a
nuclear reactor but not to decommissioning the reactor or transporting
or storing the reactor's spent fuel after it has been decommissioned.
Worse yet, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by
prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis. It does this by
restricting the opportunity for meaningful public participation, and it
imposes deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances.
In doing so, H.R. 2641 forecloses potentially critical input from
Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested parties for
construction projects that are federally funded or that require Federal
approval.
This is why I have offered an amendment ensuring that the public's
right to participate in the review process is not cut off by this
measure, and if an agency fails to meet the unrealistic deadlines
mandated by H.R. 2641, the bill would automatically green-light a
project regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly reviewed the
project's risks.
These failings of the bill, along with many others, explain why the
President's Council on Environmental Quality and more than 20 respected
environmental groups vigorously oppose this bill. It is also the
reason, yesterday, the administration issued a Statement of
Administration Policy, whereby the recommendation to the President, in
noting that these new rules would actually cause more confusion, would
be to veto the bill if passed by this House and the Senate and once it
arrives at his desk.
Last but not least, H.R. 2641 fails to address the real problem with
construction projects. The RAPID Act is clearly intended to apply to
infrastructure projects. Yet this bill does nothing to address the
actual causes of construction delays, which is the lack of funding.
Insofar as the Savannah River port dredging is concerned, the Corps
of Engineers approved that project back in 2012. Of course, since 2012,
in addition to shutting down the government for 16 days, we have been
cutting funds for these kinds of projects. So, today, for politicians
to clamor for a spotlight and then denounce the lack of funding for
these very important and crucial projects for the Nation's economic
well-being, it is really ridiculous that we would stand here and act
like it is regulations that are holding things back. No. It is the
money.
For example, there is currently a $60 billion backlog of projects
authorized under the Water Resources Act. Although every single one of
these projects has been successfully approved using existing review
procedures under NEPA, not a single one of these projects has begun
construction. Why? Because the most recent appropriations for the
Corps' construction budget was only $1.2 billion. That is $60 billion
in approved projects that would improve the Nation's infrastructure had
they not been delayed.
Clearing this backlog would be a force multiplier in creating jobs,
spurring innovation, and growing the economy. That is a jobs bill, Mr.
Chairman. What is more, the Obama administration is doing everything
that it can to improve the performance of Federal permitting and the
review of infrastructure projects.
In March 2012, the administration issued Executive Order 13604 to
modernize the Federal infrastructure permitting process and cut in half
the timeline for approving infrastructure projects. This order
incentivized better outcomes for communities and the environment while
cutting red tape. Since implementing this order, agencies have
expedited permits for over 50 major projects. In one instance, agencies
shaved up to 3 years off the timeline of the Tappan Zee Bridge
replacement project in New York. That is a multibillion-dollar project
that is putting Americans back to work. The President then issued
another memorandum in June of 2013, further directing Federal agencies
to develop an integrated interagency pre-application process for
significant offshore electric transmission projects requiring Federal
approval.
Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues often claim to want to get
Americans back to work, so I have to ask:
Why do we need legislation that does not create a single job--a bill
that will pick winners and losers and a bill that makes the process
less clear and less protective of public health and safety? Why do we
need that legislation? Why must we continue to waste this Chamber's
precious time on bills that do nothing?
Mr. Chairman, we should work together to address the real causes for
delay in the NEPA process instead of debating this dangerous bill. In
light of the bill's many serious flaws, I urge my colleagues to oppose
the legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to
the gentleman from Georgia that the provisions on the projects that he
mentioned are exactly why we need this legislation. It is because this
legislation incorporates those ideas which started, by the way, in this
House with the work of the Transportation Committee, in the
transportation bills, and that now needs to be codified and put into
law so that it can be made available not just in those projects but in
every project in which the Federal Government has a regulatory role.
At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform
Subcommittee.
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, one thing that I think we all, Republicans and
Democrats, agree on is that you can't have a world-class economy with a
third world infrastructure, and in many cases, that is what we have
today. Putting money into highways, bridges, and other infrastructure
improvements is one of the best investments that the Federal Government
can make. The gentleman from Georgia said that, that it is a great
investment, but when we put the money in for the projects, we need to
get those projects underway.
Each infrastructure project in our country creates jobs--high-paying
jobs--and they modernize our transportation system. Not only does it
create jobs, but it increases fuel efficiency because it increases
velocity. It saves fuel, which is good for our economy, and it makes us
less dependent on foreign oil. It improves safety, which not only
reduces costs but saves lives. Unfortunately, there is a major
roadblock
[[Page H2222]]
out there in completing all of the work that we desperately need to do,
and that is the excruciatingly slow process imposed by Washington on
the permitting of new construction projects. Now, that is where, I
think, the gentleman from Georgia and I disagree. He says there is not
a problem.
Let me quote President Obama:
One of the problems we've had in the past is that sometimes
it takes too long to get projects off the ground.
That is not I. That is President Obama.
There are all these permits and red tape and planning and
this and that, and some of it's important to do, but we could
do it faster.
That is the essence of this bill. We can do it faster. We both
acknowledge it creates jobs. We both acknowledge it helps our economy,
our fuel efficiency, and it saves lives. We can do that faster. That
means less fuel wasted, less time wasted, jobs created. Boy, we need
those jobs now. Let me tell you how difficult it is on projects.
The Northern Beltline, which is part of the loop around Birmingham,
was first added to the National Highway System in 1995. Only this
month, 19 years later, did we commence that project when a Federal
judge finally said enough is enough--enough delays, enough court
challenges, enough roadblocks--and he ordered the project to begin.
During that period of time, there were four environmental studies done.
Look, our tax dollars are limited. There were four environmental
studies that had to be redone from start to finish because they became
too old. They became outdated. That is money that is wasted. We can't
afford to waste money or time or lives in making this economy better
and in creating jobs.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I will yield to the gentleman in just a minute. If I have
time left, I would be glad to.
Mr. Chairman, imagine. This project in 1998 began to receive
authorization and funding, but it just started this month. These were
people, constituents--and not only those people living in central and
north Alabama--whose commutes were longer. They were people traveling
through Alabama.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MARINO. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
{time} 1215
Mr. BACHUS. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Marino) for introducing this legislation. It will reduce the time it
takes to review new construction projects and ensure that the
permitting process is not endlessly held up in courts.
That is what the judge said in the case of the Northern Beltline. He
said that this has been before the courts. Sometimes it takes people
years to get their case to court. We don't need these unnecessary
delays, legal expenses, and added environmental expenses.
We have done these same things in bipartisan SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21.
Why are we all of a sudden saying this is a bad thing when earlier, in
a bipartisan way, we approved very similar provisions?
Why in this Congress are we suddenly out here calling things
dangerous that used to be bipartisan? I don't understand that. I don't
think the American people understand this dysfunction.
I thank the Judiciary Committee, its members, Chairman Goodlatte, and
Mr. Marino. This was too late for the people along the Northern
Beltline, but it won't be too late the next time.
You cannot have a first-world economy with a third-world
infrastructure. Putting money into highway, bridge, and other
infrastructure improvements is one of the best investments that the
federal government--or state governments--can make. Each infrastructure
project in our Country creates jobs--high-paying jobs. And modernizing
our transportation and infrastructure system not only creates jobs--
high-paying jobs. It increases fuel efficiency, which is good for the
environment. It improves safety, reduces costs, and saves time.
Unfortunately, there is a major roadblock out there to completing all
of the work that we desperately need to get done, and that is the
excruciatingly slow process imposed by Washington on the permitting of
new construction projects.
President Obama has even said, ``one of the problems we've had in the
past is, is that sometimes it takes too long to get projects off the
ground. There are all these permits and red tape and planning, and this
and that, and some of it's important to do, but we could do it
faster.''
Today, it sometimes seems incredibly difficult to get permission in a
timely manner for even a small project. And when it comes to large
projects--such as the construction of the Northern Beltline in the
Birmingham area that I represent--the challenges are even greater.
While construction on the Northern Beltline has finally begun this
month, it took too long to get there, almost two decades from first
being added to the National Highway System and over ten years since
funding was authorized, and that has delayed the economic benefits that
the project will generate for the region.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I point out to my friend from Alabama that you cannot do construction
projects without Federal funding. If there is no funding that has been
appropriated, then the projects don't get done. That is what we have
had here in this Congress.
Currently, we have a $60 billion backlog of projects authorized under
the Water Resources Development Act. Each and every one of those
projects has great importance. All of the regulatory work has been
done. The projects are cleared. We just simply do not fund them here
because this Congress does not want it to be said by the American
people that the current administration is responsible for an economic
turnaround.
Despite their best efforts and most insistent efforts, the economy
continues to move along favorably, though not at the rate that we need
it to. So we really need to have legislation that we are considering
and debating on this floor that will create jobs and economic
prosperity for Americans, as opposed to these anti-regulatory bills
that come forth--it looks like about five or six every week are coming
by--plus, we have to pepper in a dose of the repeal of the Affordable
Care Act every once in awhile. Fifty times we have done that. Not one
job created.
That is the problem that we have.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the American historical record has always been ``the
worse the recession, the stronger the recovery.'' However, although the
National Bureau of Economic Research states the recession ended 5 years
ago, we can agree the recovery has been anything but strong.
Facts are something this administration fights with vehement
opposition. Nevertheless, the simple fact is this is the slowest
``recovery'' our country has witnessed since the Truman Presidency.
After the deep recession that began in December of 2007, employment
has risen sluggishly, at best, and has risen much more slowly than in
the last four recoveries, for certain. According to the CBO, employment
at the end of 2013 was about 6 million jobs short of where it would be
if the unemployment rate had returned to its pre-recession level.
This is why I have introduced H.R. 2641, the Responsibly and
Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013, also known as the
RAPID Act.
The RAPID Act creates a streamlined Federal environmental review and
permitting process that establishes transparency and certainty for job
creators. Furthermore, this bill would empower lead agencies to manage
environmental reviews from start to finish, as well as establish time
constraints on the review process and period in which a claim can be
filed.
A recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified 351 State-
level projects that, if approved for construction, could have created
1.9 million jobs annually during the projected 7 years of construction.
While these numbers help put the issue in perspective, I don't need to
see a study to know that bureaucracy is holding up projects and
preventing job growth. I see it every day in my district.
For example, one of my constituents, PPL Corporation, filed an
application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license
to build and operate a state-of-the-art nuclear plant near the
company's existing two-unit Susquehanna nuclear power plant. The plant
would produce 1,600 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than
1 million homes. PPL predicted this one project would create 400
construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs.
[[Page H2223]]
In addition, early estimates by PPL were that the project would cost
$15 billion to construct. These estimates include escalation, financing
costs, initial nuclear fuel, and contingencies and reserves.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, the positive impact of a $15
billion investment in my district in Pennsylvania, the 10th
Congressional District.
However, Washington bureaucrats have prevented this project from
creating jobs, and it has yet to break ground. Six years after the
application was first filed in 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
claims they are still reviewing the company's request for a combined
operating license. If these individuals that are reviewing this after 6
years were working in private industry, they would have been fired in
the first year. In fact, PPL says, realistically, a final decision on
the project is still several years away.
This is ridiculous.
Let me be clear. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 serves
worthy goals, which should be preserved. I live out in the country. I
get my water from a well. I love to see the deer and the bear come
through my land. I raised my children there. If my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle think that I would do anything to hurt my
children, whether it is water, air, or the environment in general, they
really should think again.
Federal agencies should be able to evaluate new projects to ensure
that they don't pose a threat to the environment or to the public.
However, over time, NEPA regulations have turned into an outdated,
burdensome, and convoluted Federal permitting process that must be
reined in.
The good news is that a bipartisan consensus exists on the need to
reform the permitting process. In fact, the administration, the
President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and legislation
adopted by a strong bipartisan majority in the 109th and 112th
Congresses all recognize that an overly burdensome and lengthy
environmental review and permitting process undermines economic growth.
The time for these reforms is now, because Americans are ready to get
back to work. The RAPID Act of 2013 will remove the red tape and allow
job creators to take projects off the drawing board and onto the
worksite.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense
reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.
March 5, 2014.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
undersigned groups strongly support H.R. 2641, the
``Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development
(RAPID) Act of 2013,'' which would provide a streamlined
process for developers, builders, and designers to obtain
environmental permits and approvals for their projects in a
timely and efficient manner, allowing jobs to be created and
the economy to grow.
Every year that major projects are stalled or cancelled
because of a dysfunctional permitting process and a system
that allows limitless challenges by opponents of development,
millions of jobs are not created. For example, 351 stalled
energy projects reviewed in one 2010 study (Project No
Project) had a total economic value of over $1 trillion and
represented 1.9 American jobs not created. Project No Project
showed that in the energy sector alone, one year of delay
translates into millions of jobs not created.
The Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development
Act of 2013 would improve the environmental review and
permitting process by:
Coordinating responsibilities among multiple agencies
involved in environmental reviews to ensure that ``the trains
run on time;''
Providing for concurrent reviews by agencies, rather than
serial reviews;
Allowing state-level environmental reviews to be used where
the state has done a competent job, thereby avoiding needless
duplication of state work by federal reviewers;
Requiring that agencies involve themselves in the process
early and comment early, avoiding eleventh-hour objections
that can restart the entire review timetable;
Establishing a reasonable process for determining the scope
of project alternatives, so that the environmental review
does not devolve into an endless quest to evaluate infeasible
alternatives;
Consolidating the process into a single Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and single Environmental Assessment
(EA) for a project, except as otherwise provided by law;
Imposing reasonable fixed deadlines for completion of an
EIS or EA; and
Reducing the statute of limitations to challenge a final
EIS or EA from six years to 180 days.
The RAPID Act is a practical, industry-wide approach that
builds on successful provisions for environmental review
management found in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21), Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), and Section 1609 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. The RAPID Act also embodies the procedural
improvements to ``cut red tape'' as called for by the Obama
administration, including, most recently, in his January 28,
2014, State of the Union Address.
The RAPID Act addresses the problem far too many shovel-
ready projects face today: lengthy project delays from
endless environmental reviews and challenges result in lost
opportunities to create jobs and grow the economy. Every year
of delay results in millions of jobs not created. The
creation of millions of jobs is worth ensuring that our
governinent works faster and more efficiently.
The undersigned groups strongly support H.R. 2641. The
RAPID Act would be the strong action needed to speed up the
permitting process and let important projects move forward,
allowing millions of workers to get back to work. We urge you
to support this important bill.
Sincerely,
American Architectural Manufacturers Association, American
Bakers Association, American Chemistry Council, American
Coating Association, American Concrete Pressure Pipe
Association, American Council of Engineering Companies,
American Forest & Paper Association, American Foundry
Society, American Highway Users Alliance, American Iron and
Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American
Rental Association, American Road & Transportation Builders
Association.
American Supply Association, Associated Builders &
Contractors, Associated Builders & Contractors--Rhode Island
Chapter, Associated Equipment Distributors, Associated
General Contractors, Associated Wire Rope Fabricators,
Association of American Railroads, Association of Equipment
Manufacturers, Construction Industry Round Table, Edison
Electric Institute, Electronic Security Association, Forging
Industry Association, Foundry Association of Michigan,
Independent Electrical Contractors, Industrial Energy
Consumers of America, Industrial Fasteners Institute,
Industrial Minerals Association--North America, Metals
Service Center Institute.
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, National
Association of Electrical Distributors, National Association
of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers,
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National
Black Chamber of Commerce, National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, National Federation of Independent Business,
National Industrial Sand Association, National Mining
Association, National Oilseed Processors Association,
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, National Roofing
Contractors Association, National Shippers Strategic
Transportation Council.
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, Non-Ferrous
Founders' Society, North American Equipment Dealers
Association, Nuclear Energy Institute, Ohio Cast Metals
Association, Pacific-West Fastener Association, Pennsylvania
Foundry Association, Petroleum Marketers Association of
America, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, South
Carolina Timber Producers Association, Texas Cast Metals
Association, Textile Rental Services Association, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Washington Retail Association, Wisconsin
Cast Metals Association, Wisconsin Grocers Association.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my friend and colleague from
Pennsylvania pointed out in the Rules Committee last night that it was
the approval process that was holding up the dredging project for the
Port of Savannah.
Just yesterday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution refuted this claim.
In reality, this project--and countless others like it--are held up by
a lack of funding.
To quote the article:
In the old days, a Congress that didn't agree with White
House priorities simply loaded its own projects into the
budget, in a bit of horse-trading.
But Republicans, particularly in the House, have placed
such bargaining out of bounds--a self-imposed restriction on
their own influence.
Because, under the House rules, this is an earmark.
The Savannah River Port dredging would be an earmark.
And so for us to place something in the budget which is not
in the budget already--it's not allowed.
That is quoting from my colleague, Representative Kingston. Because
it is an earmark, in other words, Congress or its representatives would
be barred by our own rules from placing funding in the budget for a
project.
It is unfortunate that my colleagues from Georgia on the other side
of the aisle, aided and abetted by their colleagues on the other side
of the aisle from across the country, can't seem to adjust their
legislative actions to suit the people that they represent.
[[Page H2224]]
This Savannah River Port dredging is very important to Georgia's
economy. It is the most important economic development project on the
table, and it is ready to go, but the bond between these legislators
and the big, bad Tea Party has them afraid to do what is in the best
interest of their States. That is a shame.
I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the manager, my friend, Congressman
Johnson, Mr. Marino, our colleagues on the floor of the House, and as
well on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Chair, I rise to accept the fact that there are opportunities for
discussion on streamlining and effectively expediting processes in a
collaborative way in the Federal Government to continue to move forward
the Federal Government, as it is responsible to the American people.
Unfortunately, I believe that we are not at that place today with H.R.
2641.
President Obama has been cited repeatedly. I believe that his words
at that time and today are accurate. No one would want the Federal
Government to stall moving projects forward.
I might ask my colleagues, however, if they would join me in fully
funding infrastructure and rebuilding this country, which we have not
been able to do for almost 5 years.
By reading the Statement of Administration Policy, the administration
strongly rejects the legislation's premise in H.R. 2641 that public
input and responsible agency decisionmaking under current law hinders
job creation. The administration believes that H.R. 2641, if enacted,
will lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in
the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic growth.
There lies, Mr. Chairman, the underpinnings of the President's veto
threat.
{time} 1230
Where is this bill going?
I will, at the appropriate time, place the administration's statement
into the Record.
So what are we talking about with this legislation? One, this
legislation would narrow the scope of judicial review. In addition,
this legislation would narrow the review by one Federal agency, who
would allegedly coordinate other Federal and State agencies.
Let me tell you what the problem with that is, Mr. Chairman; that is
that each of the agencies have their own extra expertise, so you are
snuffing their expertise. You are quashing their expertise. You are
forcing one agency to be the giant understander of all the nuances of
the other agencies which have a responsibility to their constituency
and to the American people.
Then you have a set of circumstances that suggests, as my amendment
will hope to correct, that you are going to deem up. If you don't get
the job done, we are going to deem you up. Beam you up. We are going to
just assume that everything has been done and you can go forward. It
doesn't matter whether you trample on farmland in Texas or whether or
not you are, in essence, leveling suburban homes in Pennsylvania or
whether or not you are in the mountains of Georgia and cause havoc.
So I would make the argument that this is not an act that is
answering the question. It is a solution searching for a problem.
Frankly, the argument made by many of us is the principal causes of
unjustified delay in implementing the NEPA review process are
inadequate agency resources. And the Bush administration noted that
NEPA was not a cause for delay.
I would ask my colleagues, how can we work together?
I think for a moment I will just pause and say that yesterday was an
unfortunate incident in the House Oversight Committee. It did not
reflect well on this institution or chairmen who lead committees.
I pause to say that because I believe it is an important statement to
make on the Floor of the House, that we should never have a setting in
a committee where a ranking member is silenced, or that a hand is used
across one's neck to make a comment about an individual not being able
to speak. All of us are equal.
I raise that here because we are talking about process and procedure.
And even though one might argue that there was a regular process of
this particular legislation, we could have been more collaborative,
because I am empathetic and I am sympathetic that we all want to make
sure that projects move quickly, that jobs are created.
But the administration has made an assessment that NEPA is not the
delay; the Bush administration has done so. And what we need is to
fully fund the government with adequate resources so that our agencies
with the appropriate staff can move forward.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am from the region of the oil spill
of 2010, and that oil spill, at that time voices that were Republican
and Democrat from the gulf region were raising their voices about the
process of review.
What happened with BOMA? Why wasn't there some understanding that
there were some cracks in the system? Even the industry recognized that
we must work on best practices, not less regulation--not bad practices,
but best practices.
And what did we do? We have put in regulations that would enhance
oversight of the issues of drilling.
So, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I rise to oppose this legislation.
We could do it more collaboratively, and we need to treat each other
with the dignity and the respect that this particular institution
deserves, both in committees and on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2641, the ``Responsible and
Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013, or as some have
termed it, the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction
Act.''
If the RAPID Act were to become law in its present form, a permit or
license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing
agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120
days.
Mr. Chair, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many members
of the House Judiciary Committee, which marked up this bill last
summer, with the NEPA process.
Why are we wasting time with this bill when we could be passing H.R.
3546, a bill introduced by my colleague Sandy Levin, the distinguished
Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee which amends the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to extend emergency unemployment
compensation (EUC) payments for eligible individuals to weeks of
employment ending on or before January 1, 2015.
Or we could bring up and pass H.R. 3888, ``The New Chance For a New
Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced which provides grants for
training to those out of work--who are merely seeking to pull
themselves up by their bootstraps--the American way.
But here we are on the Floor of the House of Representatives voting
and speaking on the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological
Distraction Act.''
There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a
year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking
operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet
from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few
months.
Something is wrong with this picture.
But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a
problem.
The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is
worse than a disease.
There is a major problem with the section that my amendment
addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for
positive agency action.
I expect to speak on my amendment shortly but suffice it-to-say, this
bill goes out of its way to ensure that some projects might be
prematurely. approved.
That's because under H.R. 2641, if a federal agency fails to approve
or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the
termination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or
180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically
deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency.
This creates a set of perverse incentives. First, as an agency is up
against that deadline and legitimate work is yet to be completed, it is
likely to disapprove the project simply because the issues have not
been vetted.
Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the
complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer
review period, rather than an arbitrary limit.
So if H.R. 2641 were to become law the most likely outcome is that
federal agencies
[[Page H2225]]
would be required to make decisions based on incomplete information, or
information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines,
and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but
for lack of sufficient review time.
In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.
Mr. Chair, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the
environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA.
The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years
provided an effective framework for all types of projects (not just
construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant to a
federal law, such as the Clean Air Act.
I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed and jaded legislation.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 2641--Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act
of 2013
(Rep. Marino, R-Pennsylvania, and 10 cosponsors, Mar. 5, 2014)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2641, which would
undercut responsible decision-making and public involvement
in the Federal environmental review and permitting processes.
As the Administration said when this legislation was
considered previously, H.R. 2641 will increase litigation,
regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve
a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed
before the proposed arbitrary deadlines. This legislation
complicates the regulatory process and creates two sets of
standards for Federal agencies to follow to review projects--
one for ``construction projects'' and one for all other
Federal actions, such as rulemakings or management plans.
The Administration strongly rejects the legislation's
premise that public input and responsible agency decision-
making under current law hinders job creation. The
Administration believes that H.R. 2641, if enacted, will lead
to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in
the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic
growth. The Administration supports efforts to improve the
efficiency of the environmental review processes without
diminishing requirements for rigorous analyses, agency
consultation, and public participation. This includes an
Interagency Steering Committee that will publish a plan with
15 reforms and over 80 actions to modernize the Federal
permitting and review of major infrastructure projects.
If the President were presented with H.R. 2641, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
his leadership in bringing this bill forward.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the RAPID Act. It is hard
enough for working middle class wage earners, many of whom haven't seen
a raise in years, to get by. With record low temperatures, polar
vortexes, and damaging snowstorms, this brutal winter has created even
bigger problems for America's families.
For too many, just paying the monthly heating bill has become a real
challenge. A few weeks ago, my hometown paper, the Richmond Times-
Dispatch, reported on record-high propane prices and the impact it has
had on the 135,000 Virginia families who heat their homes with propane.
Unfortunately, cost increases are affecting families, whether they
use propane, natural gas, or electricity to heat their homes. Right
now, moms and dads all across America are sitting at their kitchen
table looking at one of the largest home heating bills they have ever
seen.
We in Congress can't do much about the cold weather, but we can enact
sensible policies that expand energy supplies and reduce costs, and
that is exactly what we are doing in the House this week.
If you heat your home with propane, our bills tackle the
infrastructure problems that have led to record price increases. If you
heat your home with natural gas, we are trying to make it easier to
move the natural gas that is being developed throughout the country to
your home. If you heat your home with electricity, we are halting
excessive and unnecessary regulations that are expected to drive up the
costs of electricity.
The bottom line? We are reducing energy costs for America's families.
Middle class families in Virginia and throughout America have enough to
focus on without having to worry about Washington making it more
expensive for them to heat their homes.
This is an opportunity for Members of the House to stand together and
to offer some relief to struggling Americans who are simply trying to
pay their energy bills and provide for their families.
I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Representative Marino, and the
rest of the Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this issue, and
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I would also like to thank Chairmen Upton and Whitfield, Chairman
Shuster and Congressman McKinley for their work on all the legislation
dealing with energy costs this week.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the
ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague on the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Johnson, for the leadership that he has
exercised here in bringing this discussion forward on a bill that is
very disappointing to me.
This bill imposes hard-and-fast deadlines that will be unrealistic in
certain circumstances and would undercut responsible decisionmaking and
public involvement in the Federal review and permitting processes.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2641 for various
reasons.
Let's begin with the very misleading short title of this bill,
namely, the ``Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development
Act.''
Rather than effectuating real reforms to the process by which federal
agencies undertake environmental impact reviews as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, this legislation will
actually result in making this process less responsible, less
professional, and less accountable.
Worse yet, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by
prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis.
To begin with, the bill--under the guise of streamlining the approval
process--forecloses potentially critical input from federal, state, and
local agencies as well as from members of the public to comment on
environmentally-sensitive construction projects that are federally-
funded or that require federal approval.
The bill also imposes hard and fast deadlines that may be unrealistic
under certain circumstances.
Moreover, if an agency fails to meet these unrealistic deadlines, the
bill simply declares that a project must be deemed approved, regardless
of whether the agency has thoroughly assessed risks.
As a result, this measure could allow projects to proceed that put
public health and safety at risk.
For example, as the Minority's witness astutely noted at the
Committee's hearing on this bill, H.R. 2641 could effectively prevent
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from exercising its licensing
authority pertaining to nuclear power reactors, waste management sites,
and nuclear waste disposal facilities.
And, the bill could allow such projects to be approved before the
safety review is completed.
This failing of the bill, along with many others, explains why the
Administration and the President's Council on Environmental Quality,
along with more than 20 respected environmental groups vigorously
oppose this legislation.
These organizations include the Audubon Society, League of
Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club,
and The Wilderness Society.
In issuing its veto threat, the Administration warns that the bill
``would undercut responsible decision-making and public involvement in
the Federal review and permitting processes.''
In addition, the Administration observes that the bill will
``increase litigation, regulatory delays, and potentially force
agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be
completed before the proposed arbitrary deadlines.''
Another concern that I have with this bill--like other measures that
we have considered--is that it is a flawed solution in search of an
imaginary problem.
And, that is not just my opinion. The nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service issued a report last year stating that the primary
source of approval delays for construction projects ``are more often
tied to local/state and project-specific factors, primarily local/state
agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a
project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope.''
CRS further notes that project delays based on environmental
requirements stem not from NEPA, but from ``laws other than NEPA.''
So I have to ask, why do we need a measure like the so-called RAPID
Act that will undoubtedly make the process less clear and less
protective of public health and safety?
[[Page H2226]]
My final major concern with this bill is that--rather than
streamlining the environmental review process--it will sow utter
confusion.
H.R. 2641 does this by creating a separate, but only partly parallel
environmental review process for construction projects that will only
cause confusion, delay, and litigation.
As I noted at the outset, the changes to the NEPA review process
contemplated by this measure apply only to certain construction
projects.
NEPA, however, applies to a broad panoply of federal actions,
including fishing, hunting, and grazing permits, land management plans,
Base Realignment and Closure activities, and treaties.
As a result of the bill, there could potentially be 2 different
environmental review processes for the same project. For instance, the
bill's requirements would apply to the construction of a nuclear
reactor, but not to its decommissioning or to the transportation and
storage of its spent fuel.
Rather than improving the environmental review process, this bill
will complicate it and generate litigation.
But, more importantly, this bill is yet another effort by my friends
on the other side of the aisle to undermine regulatory protections.
As with all the other regulatory bills, this measure is a thinly
disguised effort to hobble the ability of federal agencies to do the
work that Congress requires them to do.
Accordingly, I strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, a
good friend and great colleague, for bringing this RAPID Act forward
because I strongly support it.
I want to just reflect. Go out of these hallowed Chambers and go into
the private sector, and think about going through a permitting process
and think about the longer you delay, the more you have to pay. It is
just that simple.
You can drag these things out and drag these things out and drag
these things out. And when you ask people: What is it that I have to
do? I have already done everything you required me to do. It is just a
little bit more. So the answer is: How long is a piece of string? We
don't know.
What we are doing by not getting this done, and we have talked about
the number of jobs that are waiting. If we are talking about improving
the economy--and these are not Republican jobs or Democrat jobs. These
are American jobs. And what are we doing? American projects to help the
American economy.
So today to even have a debate--and this is a bipartisan effort;
there is no question about it. We both feel the same way. We both know
what the problems are in our country right now. We have too many people
unemployed. In fact, we have too many people who have given up even
looking for a job. That is the unreported number that we never reflect.
But in this case we know that delaying only increases what we have to
pay. And who is picking up the tab on this? It is hardworking American
taxpayers. It is just not that much-maligned 1 percent that doesn't
want to pay their fair share. This is every single American woman and
man that is out there. It affects how they live their lives. It affects
how they pay their bills. It affects the future of our economy.
So I know we have to have debates, and this is not a debate that is
heated, but it is about heat in a way. This week we have talked about:
let's heat American homes; let's make sure that we have a sustainable
path; let's make sure that we are not putting on the backs of these
folks too much.
There is an old saying where I come from. It is: Don't worry about
the mule, just load the wagon.
Gentlemen, I have got to tell you, right now, the mule is about ready
to unhook himself from the wagon and say: You have asked me to pull too
much for far too long.
So, with Mr. Marino and what he has brought forth today, a
commonsense approach to creating jobs and getting improvements in our
country, not improvements for just Republicans but improvements for
every single American, isn't that why we are all here?
I know I represent 705,687 western Pennsylvanians. I don't know how
they are registered; I don't know how they vote; I don't know how they
worship; but I do know this: they sent me to Washington to represent
their best interests and, in a larger sense, the State of Pennsylvania
and the whole country. If we cannot agree on things like this, my
goodness, where do we go from here?
So I would just ask my colleagues--and this is a truly a bipartisan
effort. Mr. Marino, thank you so much for what you have done. This just
makes sense. And Lord, in a town where common sense is found in so few
places, let's look at this and understand the uplift for the American
people and for our economy.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, to blame the lack of job
creation on the inefficiency of regulations is kind of like--it reminds
me of when you are downstairs in the bathroom and something is leaking
from the upstairs bathroom and then someone tells you that it is
raining. It just doesn't make sense.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio), my good friend and ranking member on the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I am a bit confused. If you are listening to the debate, you have got
to be confused about what this bill is really about. Now, it is
apparently about rapid siting of nuclear plants or about constructing
of pipelines through your backyard without you being allowed to comment
or any environmental review, and somehow this is going to lead to job
creation in America.
At the beginning of the debate, they were talking about
transportation and infrastructure. I happen to be on that committee
also. First off, we already did some streamlining in the last highway
reauthorization. There is pending streamlining in the Water Resources
Development Act. But let's drill down a little. What is the real
problem?
The real problem is that this side of the aisle, the Republicans,
don't want to make the investments necessary to put people back to
work. The highway trust fund is going broke on October 1. Not a word
from that side, except the brave chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee who proposed to fund it with some tax reform. But nothing
else from that side. No proposal on how we are going to continue to
fund transportation and infrastructure in this country.
Water Resources Development Act, we have got a bill pending with some
streamlining, but guess what? There are 60 billion--``b,'' billion--
dollars of backlogged authorized water resources development projects
that have gone through the full NEPA process and been approved, but the
annual construction budget, thanks to my friends on the other side of
the aisle, is $1.2 billion a year. Let's see. I guess that figures out
to a 50-year backlog, so it really isn't going to matter how much you
eliminate NEPA review here, which is, essentially, what this bill is
about, which cuts out the public and other small things like that. A
50-year backlog.
{time} 1245
But this will solve that problem. We will be building those--well,
no, we won't, really, because we don't have the money. Well, how about
roads, bridges, highways, transit? There is an $80 billion backlog in
transit. NEPA? No, not NEPA. No money.
Federal highways. We have 140,000 bridges on the Federal system that
need replacement or substantial rehabilitation or repair. No money. It
isn't a NEPA review that is stopping that. It is a lack of funding. We
are not making the necessary investments.
So you are not addressing jobs here. Don't pretend you are addressing
jobs, don't pretend you are addressing utility rates, and don't even
pretend that this bill is going anywhere.
You know, the Republican majority repeals NEPA every other day in the
Natural Resources Committee. It hasn't happened yet; and now, this is a
new way to come at it, through the Judiciary Committee.
I guess they get tired. I mean, we have had a lot of bills on the
floor to repeal NEPA that have been passed and have gone to the Senate,
and nothing has happened. So let's try to fool them. We will cloak it
in a Judiciary bill, instead of in a Resources bill, and we will
pretend that it is not really about NEPA or that it is about something
else.
Actually, this bill is really bizarre because it creates an entirely
new
[[Page H2227]]
process for reviewing projects by amending the Administrative
Procedures Act. It doesn't repeal NEPA.
So, wow, how are those conflicts going to work out? What are the
agencies really going to do? I mean, it is gobbledygook legislation on
top of making a number of false assertions about what it will
accomplish.
What it is accomplishing is it has got a great name. It sounds good.
RAPID, I love that name. That is good. We are really good at names
around here, but we are not really good at getting things done.
There should be a bipartisan consensus, and there has been during my
long tenure in Congress on building things and rebuilding things and
building an infrastructure.
You know, it is embarrassing. The United States of America is
investing less money in its infrastructure--which is falling apart--
than many third-world countries, and I talked about how we are
developing a third-world infrastructure.
I had a colleague who is very knowledgeable on the issue who has come
up and said to me: You know, that is insulting. I said: Do you know how
bad the state of our infrastructure is? He said: No, it is insulting to
third-world countries because they are investing a larger percentage of
their gross domestic product in infrastructure than the United States
of America is investing.
It is plain and simple. You can dodge. You can weave. You can come up
with great names. You can make unbelievable assertions on the floor.
The bottom line facts, we need to invest in rebuilding America; and for
every billion dollars we spend on infrastructure, it is somewhere
between 15,000 and 20,000 jobs that are created, and these are private
sector jobs.
Private sector jobs, they do the work when the government provides
the money to the States, which goes out and competitively bids
projects; and they build them, but without money, they aren't going to
build them. It doesn't matter what the environmental review process is.
No money, no projects.
Drop it, guys. Come on. Let's do something real around here for a
change.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
It is almost amusing to hear my colleagues from the other side say
how much they want to work together, how much they want to get this
country moving, how much they want to create jobs.
Since I have been here--this is my second term, fourth year--I have
seen virtually no cooperation from the other side in creating jobs.
They get up, and they give a good speech about names, but there is no
substance to it. There is no substance to it at all.
As a matter of fact, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. Both
sides support this.
You know, my colleagues had control of the House prior to the
Republicans controlling it 4 years ago. They touched none of these
issues.
And I want to ask the American people--not my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle--how has this Federal regulation system been going
over the last 5 years?
Virtually no jobs created, agencies stopping everything they can
under this administration, but yet they stand up and give a good speech
about cooperation. I have rarely seen it here.
I have seen obstructionists because it is a power play. You know,
when someone comes up with a good idea--and I blame both sides over the
years for this--it is not what is in the best interests of the American
people. It is who is in power that wants to keep it and who is not in
power that wants to take it away. And you know something? The American
people are completely forgotten about.
Well, one of the reasons--the main reason I came to Washington was to
work for the American people, not to preserve my job, not to keep
power, not to take power; but it was to do what is right. And if you
would listen to what has taken place in some of the hearings over the
past 3.5 years that I have been involved in, you don't hear
cooperation. You don't hear it at all.
So now, I ask my colleagues on the other side: How is that Federal
system going? How is that permitting system going--that regulating
system going?
It is not going well at all. Just ask industry how much it has been
slowed down because of regulation, and thousands and thousands of more
regulations have been implemented by this administration than ever
before. So let's get serious, okay? Let's be honest with the American
people about what this is about.
The Federal government doesn't create jobs. Private sector creates
jobs. The responsibility of the Federal Government is to remove
obstacles that allow private industry to do what they do best--better
than the Federal Government.
And as I said before, I have met a lot of good people here in
Congress. I have met a lot of good people in the Federal system. But
there is a fair number of people in the Federal system, in these
agencies, that go out and say ``no,'' just for the sake of saying
``no,'' that if they had to go to work in private industry and operated
under the same premise that they did in the Federal Government, they
would be fired.
It is about time we start standing up for the American people and
create jobs; and I hear from this administration constantly, but there
are always obstacles. There are 40-some pieces of legislation sitting
on Harry Reid's desk, the leader of the Senate, the Democrat who won't
even bring it to the floor for a vote.
That is a disgrace. Bring it to the floor for a vote. Vote it up or
down, but let the American people know what is being voted on; and it
should be brought to the floor, so they know what is going on here.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I have
the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, the Federal Government does not
create a single job. I don't know exactly how many jobs we are talking
about cutting in the Federal Government from the drawdown of the
defense, but there will certainly be less federally employed Army,
Navy, Air Force, and Marine personnel and those who work in the
Department of Defense to support their efforts to defend this Nation to
keep us strong.
The Federal Government does not create a single job. Delivering our
mail provides good-paying jobs, middle class.
But I must rise in opposition to this legislation, Mr. Chair, because
it would just sow utter confusion. H.R. 2641 does that by creating a
separate, but only partly parallel environmental review process for
construction projects that will only cause confusion, delay, and
litigation.
As a result of this bill, there could potentially be two different
environmental review processes for the same project. Rather than
improving the environmental review process, this bill will complicate
it and generate litigation.
But more importantly, the bill is yet another effort by my friends on
the other side of the aisle to gum up the regulatory process and, thus,
undermine regulatory protections.
As with all other anti-regulatory bills that this Congress has
considered over the last few weeks, this measure is simply another
thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of Federal agencies to do
the work that Congress requires them to do.
Accordingly, I strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. I yield myself the remainder of the time, Mr. Chairman.
You know, Mr. Chairman, to bring about real and durable job recovery,
there can be only one conclusion about what the House can do today, and
it should vote to pass the RAPID Act.
My friend on the other side talks about the post office, and I
support them. My mother worked for the post office. But you know
something? The post office is self-funded, okay?
Where is the $1 trillion that this administration put into the so-
called stimulus? It did nothing. It wasn't applied properly. It wasn't
utilized.
This doesn't cut regulations, this legislation. It doesn't cut
regulations. It cuts making a decision from 15 years down to 4.5 years.
Just think in our households, how many of us would have delayed by
years making decisions, were it be.
This is bipartisan legislation that would transform into immediate
action
[[Page H2228]]
the recommendations of the President's Jobs Council, the exhortations
of Vice President Biden, and the promises President Obama made.
The President's Jobs Council stated that our system for permitting
and approving job-creating projects leads to delays and litigation and
recommended in 2011 that the process be streamlined. The RAPID Act does
that.
President Obama, in his 2014 State of the Union Address, promised
action to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process, so
we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.
The RAPID Act delivers that.
Let's come together, Republicans and Democrats, for the hardworking
Americans desperate for new and high-paying jobs. The RAPID Act allows
that to happen.
On average, it takes the Federal Government 10 to 15 years to approve
permitting. If private industry operated in such an irresponsible
manner, it would be bankrupt.
Instead of talking the talk, it is time to walk the walk and pass
this legislation that will create excellent-paying jobs.
My legislation reduces permitting down to 4.5 years, and it doesn't
take any authority away. It appoints a single entity, a Federal agency
that has a major hand in this for oversight.
And if my colleagues are saying: well, it is not the Federal
Government, it is the State and local governments.
Then that agency can light the fire under that local or State
government and tell them: you must get your approvals in or, by a
certain time, your opportunity to do that will be waived.
So still, in an effort to reach across the aisle and work with my
colleagues and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, let's cut the red
tape. Ask the people in my district about red tape--those from the VA,
those from Social Security--what they have to go through with
agencies--those from EPA, those from OSHA. It is a disaster.
So let's come together, Republicans and Democrats, for the
hardworking Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today, the House will pass yet another
bill that weakens important environmental laws. I will vote against
this legislation--H.R. 2641--which if enacted would gut the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NEPA process requires federal
agencies to go through a public assessment of the environmental impacts
of certain proposed federal actions. As part of this, it mandates the
consideration of alternatives to those actions. The process can
identify alternatives that are often less costly with fewer impacts to
the environment.
H.R. 2641 undermines this important process, by placing restrictions
on alternatives that can be considered, and allowing parties with
vested interests in projects to prepare environmental review documents,
creating potential conflicts of interest. It could also force agencies
to approve projects if review and analysis cannot be completed before
arbitrary deadlines.
The claimed goal of this bill is to help projects--including
infrastructure projects--to move forward more quickly. The NEPA
process, however, is not the reason for project delays. The reason is a
lack of investment from the federal government. At the Army Corps of
Engineers, there is a $60 billion backlog of authorized water resources
projects that were successfully approved under NEPA, but have not been
built due to lack of funding. At the same time, our roads and bridges
are in disrepair, not due to NEPA, but because the federal government
is short of resources, with the Highway Trust Fund projected to need
$100 billion in additional revenue over the next six years just to stay
solvent.
NEPA's positive impact has been unquestionable--it has been one of
the nation's most important environmental laws, ensuring careful
decision making and the right of the public to participate in planning
efforts that would directly impact their communities. I will be
disappointed to see H.R. 2641 pass, which will only limit the public's
participation, increase confusion, and undermine responsible agency
reviews.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-39. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 2641
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Responsibly And
Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013'' or as
the ``RAPID Act''.
SEC. 2. COORDINATION OF AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS FOR
EFFICIENT DECISIONMAKING.
(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of part 1 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after subchapter II the
following:
``SUBCHAPTER IIA--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION REGARDING PERMITTING
``Sec. 560. Coordination of agency administrative operations
for efficient decisionmaking
``(a) Congressional Declaration of Purpose.--The purpose of
this subchapter is to establish a framework and procedures to
streamline, increase the efficiency of, and enhance
coordination of agency administration of the regulatory
review, environmental decisionmaking, and permitting process
for projects undertaken, reviewed, or funded by Federal
agencies. This subchapter will ensure that agencies
administer the regulatory process in a manner that is
efficient so that citizens are not burdened with regulatory
excuses and time delays.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter, the
term--
``(1) `agency' means any agency, department, or other unit
of Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal government;
``(2) `category of projects' means 2 or more projects
related by project type, potential environmental impacts,
geographic location, or another similar project feature or
characteristic;
``(3) `environmental assessment' means a concise public
document for which a Federal agency is responsible that
serves to--
``(A) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining whether to prepare an environmental impact
statement or a finding of no significant impact;
``(B) aid an agency's compliance with NEPA when no
environmental impact statement is necessary; and
``(C) facilitate preparation of an environmental impact
statement when one is necessary;
``(4) `environmental impact statement' means the detailed
statement of significant environmental impacts required to be
prepared under NEPA;
``(5) `environmental review' means the Federal agency
procedures for preparing an environmental impact statement,
environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, or other
document under NEPA;
``(6) `environmental decisionmaking process' means the
Federal agency procedures for undertaking and completion of
any environmental permit, decision, approval, review, or
study under any Federal law other than NEPA for a project
subject to an environmental review;
``(7) `environmental document' means an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement, and includes
any supplemental document or document prepared pursuant to a
court order;
``(8) `finding of no significant impact' means a document
by a Federal agency briefly presenting the reasons why a
project, not otherwise subject to a categorical exclusion,
will not have a significant effect on the human environment
and for which an environmental impact statement therefore
will not be prepared;
``(9) `lead agency' means the Federal agency preparing or
responsible for preparing the environmental document;
``(10) `NEPA' means the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
``(11) `project' means major Federal actions that are
construction activities undertaken with Federal funds or that
are construction activities that require approval by a permit
or regulatory decision issued by a Federal agency;
``(12) `project sponsor' means the agency or other entity,
including any private or public-private entity, that seeks
approval for a project or is otherwise responsible for
undertaking a project; and
``(13) `record of decision' means a document prepared by a
lead agency under NEPA following an environmental impact
statement that states the lead agency's decision, identifies
the alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its
decision and states whether all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected
have been adopted, and if not, why they were not adopted.
``(c) Preparation of Environmental Documents.--Upon the
request of the lead agency, the project sponsor shall be
authorized to prepare any document for purposes of an
environmental review required in support of any project or
approval by the lead agency if the lead agency furnishes
oversight in such preparation and independently evaluates
such document and the document is approved and adopted by the
lead agency prior to taking any action or making any approval
based on such document.
``(d) Adoption and Use of Documents.--
``(1) Documents prepared under nepa.--
``(A) Not more than 1 environmental impact statement and 1
environmental assessment shall be prepared under NEPA for a
project (except for supplemental environmental documents
prepared under NEPA or environmental documents prepared
pursuant to a court order), and, except as otherwise provided
by law, the lead agency shall prepare the environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment. After the
[[Page H2229]]
lead agency issues a record of decision, no Federal agency
responsible for making any approval for that project may rely
on a document other than the environmental document prepared
by the lead agency.
``(B) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a lead agency
may adopt, use, or rely upon secondary and cumulative impact
analyses included in any environmental document prepared
under NEPA for projects in the same geographic area where the
secondary and cumulative impact analyses provide information
and data that pertains to the NEPA decision for the project
under review.
``(2) State environmental documents; supplemental
documents.--
``(A) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a lead agency
may adopt a document that has been prepared for a project
under State laws and procedures as the environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment for the project,
provided that the State laws and procedures under which the
document was prepared provide environmental protection and
opportunities for public involvement that are substantially
equivalent to NEPA.
``(B) An environmental document adopted under subparagraph
(A) is deemed to satisfy the lead agency's obligation under
NEPA to prepare an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment.
``(C) In the case of a document described in subparagraph
(A), during the period after preparation of the document but
before its adoption by the lead agency, the lead agency shall
prepare and publish a supplement to that document if the lead
agency determines that--
``(i) a significant change has been made to the project
that is relevant for purposes of environmental review of the
project; or
``(ii) there have been significant changes in circumstances
or availability of information relevant to the environmental
review for the project.
``(D) If the agency prepares and publishes a supplemental
document under subparagraph (C), the lead agency may solicit
comments from agencies and the public on the supplemental
document for a period of not more than 45 days beginning on
the date of the publication of the supplement.
``(E) A lead agency shall issue its record of decision or
finding of no significant impact, as appropriate, based upon
the document adopted under subparagraph (A), and any
supplements thereto.
``(3) Contemporaneous projects.--If the lead agency
determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
project will have similar environmental impacts as a similar
project in geographical proximity to the project, and that
similar project was subject to environmental review or
similar State procedures within the 5-year period immediately
preceding the date that the lead agency makes that
determination, the lead agency may adopt the environmental
document that resulted from that environmental review or
similar State procedure. The lead agency may adopt such an
environmental document, if it is prepared under State laws
and procedures only upon making a favorable determination on
such environmental document pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).
``(e) Participating Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--The lead agency shall be responsible for
inviting and designating participating agencies in accordance
with this subsection. The lead agency shall provide the
invitation or notice of the designation in writing.
``(2) Federal participating agencies.--Any Federal agency
that is required to adopt the environmental document of the
lead agency for a project shall be designated as a
participating agency and shall collaborate on the preparation
of the environmental document, unless the Federal agency
informs the lead agency, in writing, by a time specified by
the lead agency in the designation of the Federal agency that
the Federal agency--
``(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the
project;
``(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the
project; and
``(C) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
``(3) Invitation.--The lead agency shall identify, as early
as practicable in the environmental review for a project, any
agencies other than an agency described in paragraph (2) that
may have an interest in the project, including, where
appropriate, Governors of affected States, and heads of
appropriate tribal and local (including county) governments,
and shall invite such identified agencies and officials to
become participating agencies in the environmental review for
the project. The invitation shall set a deadline of 30 days
for responses to be submitted, which may only be extended by
the lead agency for good cause shown. Any agency that fails
to respond prior to the deadline shall be deemed to have
declined the invitation.
``(4) Effect of declining participating agency
invitation.--Any agency that declines a designation or
invitation by the lead agency to be a participating agency
shall be precluded from submitting comments on any document
prepared under NEPA for that project or taking any measures
to oppose, based on the environmental review, any permit,
license, or approval related to that project.
``(5) Effect of designation.--Designation as a
participating agency under this subsection does not imply
that the participating agency--
``(A) supports a proposed project; or
``(B) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with
respect to evaluation of, the project.
``(6) Cooperating agency.--A participating agency may also
be designated by a lead agency as a `cooperating agency'
under the regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2011.
Designation as a cooperating agency shall have no effect on
designation as participating agency. No agency that is not a
participating agency may be designated as a cooperating
agency.
``(7) Concurrent reviews.--Each Federal agency shall--
``(A) carry out obligations of the Federal agency under
other applicable law concurrently and in conjunction with the
review required under NEPA; and
``(B) in accordance with the rules made by the Council on
Environmental Quality pursuant to subsection (n)(1), make and
carry out such rules, policies, and procedures as may be
reasonably necessary to enable the agency to ensure
completion of the environmental review and environmental
decisionmaking process in a timely, coordinated, and
environmentally responsible manner.
``(8) Comments.--Each participating agency shall limit its
comments on a project to areas that are within the authority
and expertise of such participating agency. Each
participating agency shall identify in such comments the
statutory authority of the participating agency pertaining to
the subject matter of its comments. The lead agency shall not
act upon, respond to or include in any document prepared
under NEPA, any comment submitted by a participating agency
that concerns matters that are outside of the authority and
expertise of the commenting participating agency.
``(f) Project Initiation Request.--
``(1) Notice.--A project sponsor shall provide the Federal
agency responsible for undertaking a project with notice of
the initiation of the project by providing a description of
the proposed project, the general location of the proposed
project, and a statement of any Federal approvals anticipated
to be necessary for the proposed project, for the purpose of
informing the Federal agency that the environmental review
should be initiated.
``(2) Lead agency initiation.--The agency receiving a
project initiation notice under paragraph (1) shall promptly
identify the lead agency for the project, and the lead agency
shall initiate the environmental review within a period of 45
days after receiving the notice required by paragraph (1) by
inviting or designating agencies to become participating
agencies, or, where the lead agency determines that no
participating agencies are required for the project, by
taking such other actions that are reasonable and necessary
to initiate the environmental review.
``(g) Alternatives Analysis.--
``(1) Participation.--As early as practicable during the
environmental review, but no later than during scoping for a
project requiring the preparation of an environmental impact
statement, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for
involvement by cooperating agencies in determining the range
of alternatives to be considered for a project.
``(2) Range of alternatives.--Following participation under
paragraph (1), the lead agency shall determine the range of
alternatives for consideration in any document which the lead
agency is responsible for preparing for the project, subject
to the following limitations:
``(A) No evaluation of certain alternatives.--No Federal
agency shall evaluate any alternative that was identified but
not carried forward for detailed evaluation in an
environmental document or evaluated and not selected in any
environmental document prepared under NEPA for the same
project.
``(B) Only feasible alternatives evaluated.--Where a
project is being constructed, managed, funded, or undertaken
by a project sponsor that is not a Federal agency, Federal
agencies shall only be required to evaluate alternatives that
the project sponsor could feasibly undertake, consistent with
the purpose of and the need for the project, including
alternatives that can be undertaken by the project sponsor
and that are technically and economically feasible.
``(3) Methodologies.--
``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall determine, in
collaboration with cooperating agencies at appropriate times
during the environmental review, the methodologies to be used
and the level of detail required in the analysis of each
alternative for a project. The lead agency shall include in
the environmental document a description of the methodologies
used and how the methodologies were selected.
``(B) No evaluation of inappropriate alternatives.--When a
lead agency determines that an alternative does not meet the
purpose and need for a project, that alternative is not
required to be evaluated in detail in an environmental
document.
``(4) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the lead
agency, the preferred alternative for a project, after being
identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than
other alternatives in order to facilitate the development of
mitigation measures or concurrent compliance with other
applicable laws if the lead agency determines that the
development of such higher level of detail will not prevent
the lead agency from making an impartial decision as to
whether to accept another alternative which is being
considered in the environmental review.
``(5) Employment analysis.--The evaluation of each
alternative in an environmental impact statement or an
environmental assessment shall identify the potential effects
of the alternative on employment, including potential short-
term and long-term employment increases and reductions and
shifts in employment.
``(h) Coordination and Scheduling.--
``(1) Coordination plan.--
``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall establish and
implement a plan for coordinating public and agency
participation in and comment on the environmental review for
a project or category of projects to facilitate the
expeditious resolution of the environmental review.
``(B) Schedule.--
[[Page H2230]]
``(i) In general.--The lead agency shall establish as part
of the coordination plan for a project, after consultation
with each participating agency and, where applicable, the
project sponsor, a schedule for completion of the
environmental review. The schedule shall include deadlines,
consistent with subsection (i), for decisions under any other
Federal laws (including the issuance or denial of a permit or
license) relating to the project that is covered by the
schedule.
``(ii) Factors for consideration.--In establishing the
schedule, the lead agency shall consider factors such as--
``(I) the responsibilities of participating agencies under
applicable laws;
``(II) resources available to the participating agencies;
``(III) overall size and complexity of the project;
``(IV) overall schedule for and cost of the project;
``(V) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources
that could be affected by the project; and
``(VI) the extent to which similar projects in geographic
proximity were recently subject to environmental review or
similar State procedures.
``(iii) Compliance with the schedule.--
``(I) All participating agencies shall comply with the time
periods established in the schedule or with any modified time
periods, where the lead agency modifies the schedule pursuant
to subparagraph (D).
``(II) The lead agency shall disregard and shall not
respond to or include in any document prepared under NEPA,
any comment or information submitted or any finding made by a
participating agency that is outside of the time period
established in the schedule or modification pursuant to
subparagraph (D) for that agency's comment, submission or
finding.
``(III) If a participating agency fails to object in
writing to a lead agency decision, finding or request for
concurrence within the time period established under law or
by the lead agency, the agency shall be deemed to have
concurred in the decision, finding or request.
``(C) Consistency with other time periods.--A schedule
under subparagraph (B) shall be consistent with any other
relevant time periods established under Federal law.
``(D) Modification.--The lead agency may--
``(i) lengthen a schedule established under subparagraph
(B) for good cause; and
``(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of the
cooperating agencies.
``(E) Dissemination.--A copy of a schedule under
subparagraph (B), and of any modifications to the schedule,
shall be--
``(i) provided within 15 days of completion or modification
of such schedule to all participating agencies and to the
project sponsor; and
``(ii) made available to the public.
``(F) Roles and responsibility of lead agency.--With
respect to the environmental review for any project, the lead
agency shall have authority and responsibility to take such
actions as are necessary and proper, within the authority of
the lead agency, to facilitate the expeditious resolution of
the environmental review for the project.
``(i) Deadlines.--The following deadlines shall apply to
any project subject to review under NEPA and any decision
under any Federal law relating to such project (including the
issuance or denial of a permit or license or any required
finding):
``(1) Environmental review deadlines.--The lead agency
shall complete the environmental review within the following
deadlines:
``(A) Environmental impact statement projects.--For
projects requiring preparation of an environmental impact
statement--
``(i) the lead agency shall issue an environmental impact
statement within 2 years after the earlier of the date the
lead agency receives the project initiation request or a
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
is published in the Federal Register; and
``(ii) in circumstances where the lead agency has prepared
an environmental assessment and determined that an
environmental impact statement will be required, the lead
agency shall issue the environmental impact statement within
2 years after the date of publication of the Notice of Intent
to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal
Register.
``(B) Environmental assessment projects.--For projects
requiring preparation of an environmental assessment, the
lead agency shall issue a finding of no significant impact or
publish a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement in the Federal Register within 1 year after the
earlier of the date the lead agency receives the project
initiation request, makes a decision to prepare an
environmental assessment, or sends out participating agency
invitations.
``(2) Extensions.--
``(A) Requirements.--The environmental review deadlines may
be extended only if--
``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of
the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating
agencies; or
``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good
cause.
``(B) Limitation.--The environmental review shall not be
extended by more than 1 year for a project requiring
preparation of an environmental impact statement or by more
than 180 days for a project requiring preparation of an
environmental assessment.
``(3) Environmental review comments.--
``(A) Comments on draft environmental impact statement.--
For comments by agencies and the public on a draft
environmental impact statement, the lead agency shall
establish a comment period of not more than 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register of notice of the date of
public availability of such document, unless--
``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of
the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating
agencies; or
``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good
cause.
``(B) Other comments.--For all other comment periods for
agency or public comments in the environmental review
process, the lead agency shall establish a comment period of
no more than 30 days from availability of the materials on
which comment is requested, unless--
``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of
the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating
agencies; or
``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good
cause.
``(4) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any case in
which a decision under any other Federal law relating to the
undertaking of a project being reviewed under NEPA (including
the issuance or denial of a permit or license) is required to
be made, the following deadlines shall apply:
``(A) Decisions prior to record of decision or finding of
no significant impact.--If a Federal agency is required to
approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit, license, or
other similar application for approval related to a project
prior to the record of decision or finding of no significant
impact, such Federal agency shall approve or otherwise act
not later than the end of a 90-day period beginning--
``(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the
project is complete; and
``(ii) after the lead agency publishes a notice of the
availability of the final environmental impact statement or
issuance of other final environmental documents, or no later
than such other date that is otherwise required by law,
whichever event occurs first.
``(B) Other decisions.--With regard to any approval or
other action related to a project by a Federal agency that is
not subject to subparagraph (A), each Federal agency shall
approve or otherwise act not later than the end of a period
of 180 days beginning--
``(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the
project is complete; and
``(ii) after the lead agency issues the record of decision
or finding of no significant impact, unless a different
deadline is established by agreement of the Federal agency,
lead agency, and the project sponsor, where applicable, or
the deadline is extended by the Federal agency for good
cause, provided that such extension shall not extend beyond a
period that is 1 year after the lead agency issues the record
of decision or finding of no significant impact.
``(C) Failure to act.--In the event that any Federal agency
fails to approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit,
license, or other similar application for approval related to
a project within the applicable deadline described in
subparagraph (A) or (B), the permit, license, or other
similar application shall be deemed approved by such agency
and the agency shall take action in accordance with such
approval within 30 days of the applicable deadline described
in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(D) Final agency action.--Any approval under subparagraph
(C) is deemed to be final agency action, and may not be
reversed by any agency. In any action under chapter 7 seeking
review of such a final agency action, the court may not set
aside such agency action by reason of that agency action
having occurred under this paragraph.
``(j) Issue Identification and Resolution.--
``(1) Cooperation.--The lead agency and the participating
agencies shall work cooperatively in accordance with this
section to identify and resolve issues that could delay
completion of the environmental review or could result in
denial of any approvals required for the project under
applicable laws.
``(2) Lead agency responsibilities.--The lead agency shall
make information available to the participating agencies as
early as practicable in the environmental review regarding
the environmental, historic, and socioeconomic resources
located within the project area and the general locations of
the alternatives under consideration. Such information may be
based on existing data sources, including geographic
information systems mapping.
``(3) Participating agency responsibilities.--Based on
information received from the lead agency, participating
agencies shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues
of concern regarding the project's potential environmental,
historic, or socioeconomic impacts. In this paragraph, issues
of concern include any issues that could substantially delay
or prevent an agency from granting a permit or other approval
that is needed for the project.
``(4) Issue resolution.--
``(A) Meeting of participating agencies.--At any time upon
request of a project sponsor, the lead agency shall promptly
convene a meeting with the relevant participating agencies
and the project sponsor, to resolve issues that could delay
completion of the environmental review or could result in
denial of any approvals required for the project under
applicable laws.
``(B) Notice that resolution cannot be achieved.--If a
resolution cannot be achieved within 30 days following such a
meeting and a determination by the lead agency that all
information necessary to resolve the issue has been obtained,
the lead agency shall notify the heads of all participating
agencies, the project sponsor, and the Council on
Environmental Quality for further proceedings in accordance
with section 204 of NEPA, and shall publish such notification
in the Federal Register.
``(k) Report to Congress.--The head of each Federal agency
shall report annually to Congress--
``(1) the projects for which the agency initiated
preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment;
[[Page H2231]]
``(2) the projects for which the agency issued a record of
decision or finding of no significant impact and the length
of time it took the agency to complete the environmental
review for each such project;
``(3) the filing of any lawsuits against the agency seeking
judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by
the agency for an action subject to NEPA, including the date
the complaint was filed, the court in which the complaint was
filed, and a summary of the claims for which judicial review
was sought; and
``(4) the resolution of any lawsuits against the agency
that sought judicial review of a permit, license, or approval
issued by the agency for an action subject to NEPA.
``(l) Limitations on Claims.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial
review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a Federal
agency for an action subject to NEPA shall be barred unless--
``(A) in the case of a claim pertaining to a project for
which an environmental review was conducted and an
opportunity for comment was provided, the claim is filed by a
party that submitted a comment during the environmental
review on the issue on which the party seeks judicial review,
and such comment was sufficiently detailed to put the lead
agency on notice of the issue upon which the party seeks
judicial review; and
``(B) filed within 180 days after publication of a notice
in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, license,
or approval is final pursuant to the law under which the
agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is specified in
the Federal law pursuant to which judicial review is allowed.
``(2) New information.--The preparation of a supplemental
environmental impact statement, when required, is deemed a
separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a
claim for judicial review of such action shall be 180 days
after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the record of decision for such action.
Any claim challenging agency action on the basis of
information in a supplemental environmental impact statement
shall be limited to challenges on the basis of that
information.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to create a right to judicial review or
place any limit on filing a claim that a person has violated
the terms of a permit, license, or approval.
``(m) Categories of Projects.--The authorities granted
under this subchapter may be exercised for an individual
project or a category of projects.
``(n) Effective Date.--The requirements of this subchapter
shall apply only to environmental reviews and environmental
decisionmaking processes initiated after the date of
enactment of this subchapter.
``(o) Applicability.--Except as provided in subsection (p),
this subchapter applies, according to the provisions thereof,
to all projects for which a Federal agency is required to
undertake an environmental review or make a decision under an
environmental law for a project for which a Federal agency is
undertaking an environmental review.
``(p) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to supersede, amend, or modify sections 134, 135,
139, 325, 326, and 327 of title 23, sections 5303 and 5304 of
title 49, or subtitle C of title I of division A of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the
amendments made by such subtitle (Public Law 112-141).''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the items relating to subchapter II the following:
``subchapter iia--interagency coordination regarding permitting
``560. Coordination of agency administrative operations for
efficient decisionmaking.''.
(c) Regulations.--
(1) Council on environmental quality.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this title, the Council
on Environmental Quality shall amend the regulations
contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, to implement the provisions of this title and
the amendments made by this title, and shall by rule
designate States with laws and procedures that satisfy the
criteria under section 560(d)(2)(A) of title 5, United States
Code.
(2) Federal agencies.--Not later than 120 days after the
date that the Council on Environmental Quality amends the
regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, to implement the provisions of this
title and the amendments made by this title, each Federal
agency with regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
shall amend such regulations to implement the provisions of
this subchapter.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C of House
Report 113-374. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part C of House Report 113-374.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 25, strike lines 1 through 19.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
{time} 1300
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the provision
deeming approved any project in which the agency does not meet
deadlines contained in the bill. As we have listened to the discussion,
as I indicated in my earlier time on the floor, there is much that we
can agree to on the issue of making more effective our Federal
Government, making it work for the people. We all agree to that. In
fact, I had suggested that we provide full funding for infrastructure
rebuild.
But this bill ignores the value of oversight. The bill also ignores
the fact that NEPA has, for more than 40 years, provided an effective
framework for all types of projects--not just construction projects--
that require Federal approval pursuant to a Federal law such as the
Clean Air Act.
I want to read into the Record a comment that I made earlier, why
this is a misdirected legislation. The CEQ, general counsel for 25
years during the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush
administrations, who was intimately involved in the implementation of
NEPA through the executive branch, observed most delays in the
environmental review processes are caused by factors other than NEPA or
justified by the nature of the project.
But yet this bill would indicate that if by the time that this bill
designates the oversight has not been finished--that could be an
oversight for a nuclear-fired plant; it could be an oversight dealing
with some of the energy resources that we have that require that kind
of oversight; it could be the oversight of building a major
construction project through a heavily populated neighborhood; or it
could be oversight on many aspects of America's business--then this
bill says it is simply deemed up--deemed up, Mr. Chairman.
So how can one believe that problems will be solved by just
ignoring--ignoring--the process?
There is a major problem with the section that my amendment
addresses, and that is that automatic approval, that deeming up, that
beaming up. And so I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee
amendment which relieves us of that burden of fearfully passing
legislation that would, in fact, deem up.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my colleague with whom
we have worked closely on several matters on several committees, Mr.
Chairman, the American people desperately need new jobs. Just this
week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that America's labor
force participation rate is at a 35-year low. Over 92 million Americans
who could work are outside of the workforce. That is more than the
population of all but 14 of the world's 228 countries--and more than
every country in the Western Hemisphere but Brazil and Mexico.
We face this historically low rate not because Americans don't want
to work, but because so many Americans have despaired of any hope of
finding a new full-time job and have abandoned the workforce. The RAPID
Act offers strong help to reverse this tragedy, restore hope, and
produce millions of new jobs.
We must pass the bill, not weaken it, to provide these new, high-wage
jobs. But the gentlelady's amendment would weaken the bill in one of
the worst possible ways. It would remove the clear consequence in the
bill for agencies
[[Page H2232]]
that refuse to follow the bill's deadlines. That consequence is to deem
permits approved if agencies refuse to approve or deny them within
those deadlines.
Mr. Chairman, the bill provides 4\1/2\ years for agencies to complete
their environmental reviews for new permit applications and reasonable
additional time for agencies to wrap up final permit approvals or
denials after that. 4\1/2\ years is more time than it took the United
States to fight and win World War II.
If agencies can't wrap up their environmental reviews in that much
time and then meet the bill's remaining deadlines, there is something
terribly wrong with the agencies. The prospect of facing a default
approval at the end of the substantial time the bill grants is an
eminently responsible, reasonable way to assure that agencies will
conduct full reviews and wrap their work up in time to make up-or-down
decisions on their own.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and, reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me restate again what is in this legislation.
If a Federal agency fails to approve or disapprove the project or
make the required finding of the determination within the applicable
deadline, which is either 90 days or 180 days, depending on the
situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved--deemed
approved--by such agency.
Mr. Chairman, do the American people want something deemed approved
that might be a dangerous and unsuitable project in their community?
And as it relates to the creation of jobs, I thank the gentleman for
his explanation, but I will tell you that it is said by the Federal
Highway Administration, the majority of the approved projects required
limited documentation or analysis under NEPA. Further, when
environmental requirements have caused project delays, requirements
established under laws other than NEPA have generally been the fault.
NEPA has not stopped the creation of jobs.
But what I can tell my good friend is that, if we could pass the
unemployment insurance extension, we can give opportunity to Americans
to keep looking for jobs; and if we pass an infrastructure bill, we
would have jobs.
So my point is that my amendment is very simple. It is just to
eliminate that provision that might dangerously put Americans in
jeopardy by, in essence, allowing projects to be approved while there
is a studious, conscientious review of that project that is to generate
jobs but to provide for the safety, the security, the tranquility, and
the peace of the American people. I can't imagine that we would want to
throw into legislation on streamlining an absolute hatchet that says
your neck is cut off if, in fact, you are not finished with your work;
the heck with it, we are going on to produce this project.
I know that the American people believe in the spirit of my good
friend from Pennsylvania's intentions. We can work together. We can put
legislation forward that can be constructive. But a shortened time of 4
years is nothing to celebrate if, in essence, the time is needed for
review.
I have cited some of the challenges that we face: oil spills;
construction projects that have seen large numbers of deaths because of
the way it was done; collapse of buildings, as we have seen in the
tragedy of the building that was collapsed in Pennsylvania; and other
terrible disasters that have occurred that require the rebuild of
certain facilities in the United States.
I cannot imagine--again, I might say that the general counsel that
was general counsel for the CEQ to all of the last four Presidents has
indicated NEPA is not a problem.
I ask that my amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment, be supported and
make this legislation a step better and a step in a direction to get it
where it should be. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2641,
the ``Responsible and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of
2013.''
If the RAPID Act were to become law in its present form, a permit or
license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing
agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120
days.
My amendment strikes the provision deeming approved any project for
which agency does not meet deadlines contained in the bill.
Mr. Chair, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many members
of this committee with the NEPA process.
There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a
year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking
operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet
from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few
months.
Something is wrong with this picture.
But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a
problem.
Mr. Chair, why are we wasting time with this bill when we could be
passing H.R. 3546, a bill introduced by my colleague Sandy Levin, the
distinguished Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee, which
amends the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to extend emergency
unemployment compensation (EUC) payments for eligible individuals to
weeks of employment ending on or before January 1, 2015.
Or we could bring up and pass H.R. 3888, ``The New Chance For a New
Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced which provides grants for
training to those out of work--who are merely seeking to pull
themselves up by their bootstraps--the American way.
But here we are on the Floor of the House of Representatives voting
and speaking on the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological
Distraction Act.''
The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is
worse than a disease.
There is a major problem with the section that my amendment
addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for
positive agency action.
Under H.R. 2641, if a federal agency fails to approve or disapprove
the project or make the required finding of the termination within the
applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 180 days, depending on
the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved,
deemed approved by such agency.
This creates a set of perverse incentives. First, as an agency is up
against that deadline and legitimate work is yet to be completed, it is
likely to disapprove the project simply because the issues have not
been vetted.
Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the
complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer
review period, rather than an arbitrary limit.
So if H.R. 2641 were to become law the most likely outcome is that
federal agencies would be required to make decisions based on
incomplete information, or information that may not be available within
the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would
have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.
In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.
The Jackson Lee Amendment sets up a trigger after a period of time
for a process, which is not automatic approval, but is rather a
convening of the stakeholders around figuring out what is standing in
the way of the NEPA decision.
Mr. Chair, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the
environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA.
The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years
provided an effective framework for all types of projects (not just
construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant to a
federal law, such as the Clean Air Act.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R.
2641 and keep Americans working.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to close on this thought
here. My colleague on the other side says that 4\1/2\ years is just
simply not enough time to go through the permitting and licensing
project. Just think about this: ask the people in the private sector
when you see buildings going up, before they are going up when there is
a statement on the land where the building is going to go up as to this
project is going to take place in so much time, ask those people, get
information to see how long it takes the private sector to do the same
thing that the Federal Government is supposed to be doing. At most, a
couple of years--not 10 years, not 12 years, not 15 years. Private
industry can have this done in a couple of years with all the research,
with all the permitting, with all the licensing, and with all the
hearings.
I think one of my colleagues said this blocks out the public from
hearing or making any statements. That is simply
[[Page H2233]]
not true. That is absolutely not true. The public still has the time
and can do that.
So with that, I oppose my good friend's amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McKinley
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part C of House Report 113-374.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 27, insert after line 17 the following, and
redesignate succeeding subsections accordingly:
``(k) Limitation on Use of Social Cost of Carbon .--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any environmental review
or environmental decisionmaking process, a lead agency may
not use the social cost of carbon.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `social
cost of carbon' means the social cost of carbon as described
in the technical support document entitled `Technical Support
Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866',
published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon, United States Government, in May 2013, revised in
November 2013, or any successor thereto or substantially
related document, or any other estimate of the monetized
damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon
dioxide emissions in a given year.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit agencies
under this legislation from using the social cost of carbon that this
administration implemented under executive order. Late on a Friday
afternoon in June of 2013, this increase in the cost estimate for the
social cost of carbon showed up in an obscure rule regarding microwave
ovens. In typical fashion with this administration, there was no public
debate, no stakeholder comment, and no vote in Congress for this
estimate which increased the cost over 50 percent. But they didn't
consider the social cost of mental anguish and health care for those
that lose their job as a result.
Then again, this is the same administration who issued a de facto ban
on new coal-fired powerhouses and refused to hold listening sessions in
the areas most affected by fossil fuels. Coal production is down
throughout Appalachia, and down by nearly half over the last 5 years
under this administration.
Too many people in Washington just don't get it. When you shut down
the fossil fuel industry in a community--in particular, a coal mine--
you shut down an entire community. Railroad workers, machinists, timber
and coal industries, pharmacists, and schoolteachers all are effected
by these kinds of policies. Entire communities, the social fabric of
our Nation, are on edge while this administration's ideologically
driven policies are threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs all
across America.
This is the same President who, in 2008, said he would bankrupt the
coal industry. This has become personal to me, Mr. Chairman, and many
people throughout the coalfields of America. The rest of the world is
investing in coal, building new plants, and increasing their
consumption of coal--but not here in America.
This President is gambling with our economy and risking America's
future. For a President who likes to talk about fairness, Mr. Chairman,
blaming our fossil fuels as a health risk isn't fair.
But then again, is it fair for the EPA to require standards that
can't be achieved? Is it fair to blame man for climate change when
naturally occurring CO2 emissions represent 96 percent
naturally, while U.S. coal emissions contributed only two-tenths? Let
me say that again. Two-tenths of 1 percent of the emissions occur from
coal-fired powerhouses.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would prohibit an
agency from considering the social cost of carbon--social cost of
carbon--in an agency's environmental review of a proposed construction
project.
This amendment ignores the fundamental reality that climate change is
real and we need to do something about it. The social cost of carbon,
or SCC, is an estimate of the social and economic benefits of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions that began under the Bush administration and
has been upheld by the courts. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit ordered the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to include SCC in its light-truck fuel economy standards
in 2007.
Thomas Sterner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund,
cited the Obama administration's SCC estimates as ``a welcome step
forward, reflecting the latest versions of the underlying models.''
Billy Pizer, a Duke University economist, notes that the ``key thing is
we are recognizing the answer is not zero. We know there are negative
consequences. And we are trying to put an accurate dollar value on
it.''
Even William Bumpers, an attorney with Baker Botts, who typically
represents manufacturers in pollution cases, acknowledged that the
``only real cost of carbon that I know is wrong is zero.''
{time} 1315
Perhaps most importantly for purposes of this amendment is that there
is overwhelming consensus that every ton of carbon dioxide emitted into
the atmosphere has very real costs to human health, ecosystems, and the
economy.
The SCC estimates involve extensive analysis of the best available
peer-reviewed literature and climate economic assessment models. They
include a broad range of costs associated with anticipated climate
impacts on society, such as the property damage from increased flood
risks, or the additional energy costs associated with climate
oscillations.
Since 2009 alone, there have been a series of major climatic events
that demonstrate the costly effects of climate change. How many so-
called ``hundred-year storms'' have to hit a major city like New York
before climate skeptics will wake up?
The 2011 Texas drought alone cost farmers and ranchers over $5
billion. How many farmer's crops must wither on the vine before we face
up to the real costs inaction?
I ask my colleagues to oppose this very detrimental amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think we all can admit that
CO2 emissions have increased. In the last numbers of years,
200 years, CO2 emissions have increased from 320 parts per
million to 400 parts per million. During this same period of time,
however, population has expanded by eight times. Life expectancy across
the world has doubled. Human cancers and viral diseases have decreased.
Do opponents of our fossil fuels truly believe our society will be
developed on anything other than cheap, abundant, and reliable sources
of energy such as coal and natural gas?
Fossil fuels have lifted billions of people out of poverty.
CO2 is essential to human life. In The New York Times, Bill
Gates was quoted as saying:
If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far
you would pick energy.
According to statistics from the EIA, in 2010, 80 percent of the
world's GDP is attributed to fossil fuels. This represents $60
trillion.
However, the opponents of this amendment and fossil fuels in general
turn a blind eye to the suffering of over 1.3 billion people across the
world who have no access to electricity for heating, cooking, and water
supplies. That is a social travesty.
To quote one climate scientist we spoke with:
[[Page H2234]]
Just so radical environmentalists can feel better about
themselves, they prevent families and children living in
poverty from having access to the most dependable and
affordable energy resources.
That, Mr. Chairman, is immoral.
In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his staunch
support of this amendment and his hard work on the underlying
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to accept this amendment and
the legislation. Poverty is not just the number one threat to the
environment and health in our society, but throughout the world in
general.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman
Goodlatte.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
It is bad enough that agencies already take too much time to conclude
construction permit reviews. It is even worse for them to draw out the
process on the basis of junk science. And that is precisely what the
Obama Administration's pronouncements on the ``Social Cost of Carbon''
appear to be.
To be specific, multiple commenters on the Administration's latest
``findings'' argue that ``carbon's social cost is an unknown quantity;
that [social-cost-of-carbon] analysts can get just about any result
they desire by fiddling with non-validated climate parameters, made-up
damage functions, and below-market discount rates; and that [social-
cost-of-carbon] analysis is computer-aided sophistry, its political
function being to make renewable energy look like a bargain at any
price and fossil energy look unaffordable no matter how cheap.''
Junk science and sophistry have no place standing between hardworking
Americans and new, high-paying jobs. I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Webster of Florida
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part C of House Report 113-374.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 30, line 9, insert after ``subchapter.'' the
following: ``In the case of a project for which an
environmental review or environmental decisionmaking process
was initiated prior to the date of enactment of this
subchapter, the provisions of subsection (i) shall apply,
except that, notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, in determining a deadline under such subsection, any
applicable period of time shall be calculated as beginning
from the date of enactment of this subchapter.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Webster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Marino for putting forth this
bill, the RAPID Act. This bill is a giant step toward implementing an
environmental review process that works. I offer an amendment today not
to alter the process, but to ensure that projects that are currently
languishing in current environmental review have an opportunity to
access the tools provided in this bill.
Infrastructure projects are vital to my home State of Florida. From
port infrastructure to airports to seaports, road projects, even the
Everglades restoration projects, my State's economy is supported by
wise in investment in infrastructure.
Two projects in my State have suffered greatly under the current
environmental review process. Orlando International Airport has had
plans to develop a piece of property for airport services for more than
a decade. The expansion would create skilled, high-paying jobs, and
would be a boost to central Florida's economy. The plans have been
under environmental review since 2008. A simple environmental
assessment should not take more than 6 years.
Another project in our State, Port Everglades, involves deepening an
existing channel by a few feet. The deepening of the channel at Port
Everglades will allow more exports to flow out of our State on Post
Panamax ships. This project is vital to our State as a whole, but also
important to central Florida due to the large amounts of citrus that
ships out of our State through Port Everglades. The more citrus we can
ship, the more jobs we create. However, the channel deepening has been
under environmental review for more than 17 years. For nearly two
decades, Port Everglades has been caught in an endless cycle of review.
The Florida delegation is committed, both Republicans and Democrats, to
getting this project complete.
My amendment today is offered with these projects in mind. This
amendment simply applies the same timelines that the RAPID Act
establishes for new projects to projects that are currently under
review.
Does it mean that they would be automatically, if it is already 4\1/
2\ years into the project? No, it just means that timeline would not go
beyond another 4\1/2\ years.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make the
so-called RAPID Act, which, by the way, I would rename, as our caucus
has done, the Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.
This RAPID Act will apply retroactively to construction projects that
are currently under review. As a result, all of the bill's problematic
provisions that we have cited, including its arbitrary deadlines for
environmental review and restrictions on public comment, would apply to
pending construction projects that require Federal approval or Federal
permitting.
This amendment, like the RAPID Act, ignores the fact that NEPA is not
the problem. According to the Congressional Research Service, which is
nonpartisan, project approval delays based on environmental
requirements are not caused by NEPA. Rather, CRS reports that these
delays are caused by State and local factors like project funding
levels, local opposition to a project, a project's complexity, or late
changes in the project scope.
This amendment would do nothing to address the underlying problem,
and that underlying problem is the lack of funding. So we need to
address, Mr. Chairman, the root causes of the delays in the process,
not threaten public health and safety by automatically approving
projects when agencies fail to meet arbitrary deadlines.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure everyone
understands what this does. It would limit to 4\1/2\ more years. So we
have a project 17 years in. Now we are saying, all right, can you give
us an answer in 4\1/2\ more years? Over two decades, and we can't get
an answer? I don't know; maybe we won't. But if the answer is ``no,''
say it. That is all they have to do. This doesn't automatically approve
anything. What it says is, Give us an answer. Isn't 21 years long
enough?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that
I utter this saying: Show me the money. When the money is there,
projects can start being funded and work can begin. Workers can start
working and getting paychecks. In that way, we will reinvigorate this
economy. We have got to have--instead of anti-regulatory bills, we need
job-creation bills.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, just to highlight some construction that has
taken place in the past before we had all this regulation: San
Francisco Bay Bridge construction started July 9, 1933, and the bridge
opened up on November 12, 1936. Chesapeake Bay Bridge construction
started in January of 1949 and the
[[Page H2235]]
bridge opened up July 30, 1952. Empire State Building construction
started January 22, 1930, and the building opened up May 1, 1931. The
Chrysler Building construction began in 1926 and was completed in 1930.
One of my favorites: the new Yankee Stadium groundbreaking was in
August of 2006; opening day was April of 2009.
There are thousands of comedians out of business. If my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle would get serious about following the
premise that the American people want--less red tape--instead of trying
to be funny, we would be in good shape.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong support of
the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
The RAPID Act includes important reforms to assure that agencies wrap
up their environmental reviews for construction permits within a
generous four-and-one-half years. The current language of the bill
applies these reforms to all ``environmental reviews'' and all
``environmental decisionmaking processes'' begun after the bill's
enactment.
The amendment takes the next step and applies the bill to
environmental reviews and environmental decisionmaking processes begun
before enactment. But it also generously provides that the time
remaining for agencies to conclude a review or decisionmaking process
will be calculated as if the review or process had begun on the date of
enactment--just as with a new permit application. Other deadlines in
the bill will likewise be calculated as if the relevant timeframe began
on the date of enactment, not before enactment.
The amendment thus represents a very reasonable balance between
assuring that pending permit applications will at last be wrapped up
and providing agencies with adequate time to wrap them up.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his
support, and I urge Members to vote for this amendment. It is a good
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Webster).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part C of House Report 113-374.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 30, line 23, insert after ``112-141).'' the following:
``(q) Exception.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the provisions of this section shall not apply
in the case of a project described in paragraph (2), or an
environmental document pertaining to such a project.
``(2) Project described.--A project described in this
paragraph is any project that pertains to a nuclear facility
in an area designated as an earthquake fault zone.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment exempts from the bill any construction
project for a nuclear facility planned in an area designated as an
earthquake fault zone.
The RAPID Act would prevent meaningful input on complicated
construction projects that have the potential to have disastrous impact
on individuals living near them.
The meltdown of the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power
plant in Japan in the aftermath of a devastating earthquake and tsunami
highlights the dangers of regulatory failure when it comes to ensuring
the safe operation of nuclear reactors. In particular, the Fukushima
disaster illustrates the failure in planning a construction project in
an area susceptible to earthquakes and tsunamis.
March 11, 2014, next week, marks the 3-year anniversary of the
Fukushima meltdown. A recent reporter visiting the site described it
like this:
The site of Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan remains a
post-apocalyptic landscape of abandoned towns, frozen in
time.
{time} 1330
Now, consider the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, which is only 24
miles from New York City and, according to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, could be at risk of reactor core damage from an earthquake.
An estimated 17 million people live within a 50-mile radius of the
Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.
By imposing strict deadlines and limiting opportunities for agencies
and the public to participate in the approval process, this bill could
prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from being able to protect
the tens of millions who live in the greater New York Metropolitan area
and millions of Americans who live near nuclear power plants from a
catastrophe akin to what happened at Fukushima in Japan.
I want to point out that we have already had nuclear accidents right
here in the United States. Just last month, night shift workers inhaled
plutonium that was leaked from a nuclear waste burial site in Carlsbad,
New Mexico.
Radioactive materials reached the surface and were inhaled by several
workers. Those workers face the possibility of subatomic particles
bombarding their internal organs for the rest of their lives.
Now, imagine the immense risk to human health that would result from
a large-scale leak caused by an earthquake. It would be catastrophic.
We cannot afford to water down nuclear regulations or restrict the
ability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from doing its job of
protecting human health.
My amendment would ensure that the inclusive and prudential
construction approval process that currently exists under the National
Environmental Policy Act will continue to apply to any construction
projects for a nuclear facility planned in an area designated as an
earthquake fault zone.
The procedures in this bill that would short-circuit the NEPA
procedures are just too dangerous when you are considering an
application to construct a nuclear facility in an earthquake fault
zone.
I urge everyone to support the amendment because, when it comes to
constructing a nuclear facility in an earthquake fault zone, we really
cannot be too careful.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is unnecessary and could
needlessly block important energy construction projects from breaking
ground.
The March 2011 ``Project No Project'' study identified 351 energy
projects, including nuclear projects, that, if approved, could generate
$1.1 trillion for the economy and create 1.9 million jobs annually.
I appreciate that my colleague is concerned about the safety of
nuclear power, including in earthquake fault zones. The RAPID Act does
not require agencies to approve or deny any particular project or
permit application.
It simply ensures that the environmental review and permitting
process is conducted by agencies in an efficient and transparent
manner. It is consistent with the administration's own guidance, the
President's Jobs Council's recommendations, prior, bipartisan
legislation, and the all-of-the-above energy strategy that America
needs.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that, no, the
RAPID Act does not guarantee any nuclear power plant or anything else,
but it does short-circuit the proper review.
It, for instance, says that if certain procedures are not completed
within a certain period of time, the application is deemed approved. It
means that the applicant can slow-walk information and get an approval
automatically because the review is not complete within a period of
time.
It is just too dangerous. The present procedures that we have have,
in fact, allowed us to build the nuclear power plants, and other
facilities have been built.
We should not play Russian roulette with the lives of millions of
Americans
[[Page H2236]]
by short-circuiting the environmental review of nuclear power plants,
especially in earthquake fault zones.
Yes, we need energy. Yes, we should have energy from all sorts of
power sources, but we should do it safely and not risk Fukushimas
galore.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part C of House Report 113-374.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 32, after line 2, insert the following:
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or the
amendments made by this Act shall have the effect of changing
or limiting any law or regulation that requires or provides
for public comment or public participation in an agency
decision making process.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee for
making my amendment in order and urge my colleagues to support my
commonsense amendment to protect the right of the public to comment on
Federal projects under the NEPA review process.
The purpose of my amendment is simple. It protects the right of the
public to comment. This amendment would ensure that H.R. 2641, the so-
called RAPID Act of 2013, does not restrict the right of any member of
the public to comment on construction projects that may have an
environmental impact.
Like the administration and more than 20 well-respected environmental
groups, I oppose the RAPID Act. This bill threatens public health and
safety by putting a thumb on the scales in favor of private sector
businesses in the project approval process.
It is yet another antiregulatory measure whose sole purpose is to
grease the wheels of the approval process for projects that are
environmentally sensitive.
Aside from creating duplicative and costly regulatory requirements
that pertain to only certain types of projects, the RAPID Act would
also limit the right of the public to comment on these projects.
The bill does that in two ways: First, by reducing opportunities for
public input; and, second, by fast-tracking the approval process
through arbitrary deadlines.
The NEPA approval process has protected the environment for more than
20 years, Mr. Chairman, and it is designed to be smart from the start.
Through an open, flexible, and timely process, NEPA empowers the
public to weigh in on decisions. That means that the local farmer who
owns land that would be affected by a Federal construction project has
equal footing as the company that would stand to benefit from that
project. My amendment is vital to ensuring that the RAPID Act doesn't
shut the public out of this process.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me
in ensuring that the RAPID Act does not foreclose public participation.
Accordingly, I urge that this committee make my amendment in order,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The RAPID Act will create jobs by ensuring that the Federal
environmental review and permitting process works like it should. The
RAPID Act is drafted to make agencies operate efficiently and
transparently; it does not prevent citizens from participating in this
process.
In fact, the bill makes sure that agencies provide the public with
reasonable public comment periods. It authorizes up to 60 days of
public comment on Environmental Impact Statements, up to 30 days of
comment on environmental assessments and other documents, and grants
the lead agency authority to negotiate extensions or provide them on
its own for good cause.
This is more than fair. By comparison, the National Environmental
Policy Act, or NEPA, regulations only require agencies to allow 45 days
for public comment on draft Environmental Impact Statements and 30 days
for public comments on final Environmental Impact Statements.
The RAPID Act also reasonably requires that a person comment on an
environmental document before challenging it in court, and bring any
suit within 6 months, as opposed to 6 years. Opponents should not be
able to delay a project indefinitely by playing hide-the-ball with
agencies or by resting on their rights.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Webster of Florida). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Webster of Florida, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2641) to provide for improved coordination of agency actions in the
preparation and adoption of environmental documents for permitting
determinations, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________