[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 138 (Thursday, September 24, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6207-H6213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESPONSIBLY AND PROFESSIONALLY INVIGORATING DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 348.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 420 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. 348.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1514
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. 348) 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. Duncan of Tennessee 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
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
{time} 1515
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
America's voters sent the 114th Congress to Washington to help turn
around this Nation's struggling economy.
For more than 6\1/2\ long years, America's families and workers have
been waiting for the Obama administration to join with Congress to pass
measures that will adequately restore jobs and growth to our land. The
job clearly has not been finished.
Throughout the Obama administration, America's growth rate has been
historically anemic. The truest measure of unemployment--the rate that
includes both discouraged workers and those who cannot find a full-time
job--remains over 10 percent. Our labor force participation rate
remains mired among historic lows.
Median real household income, meanwhile, is 5 percent lower than in
June 2009, when the recession officially ended. Median incomes are
supposed to rise during economic recoveries, not fall. The Obama
administration has managed to buck the historical trend.
However, the President at least pays lip service to the need to
unleash construction projects. If one thinks back
[[Page H6208]]
to the start of the Obama administration, one can remember President
Obama's plan to solve the Great Recession with the nearly $1 trillion
stimulus bill.
The stimulus was supposed to work, according to the President,
because America had shovel-ready projects from which new, good-paying
jobs would be created once the stimulus was enacted and the money was
doled out.
While many, including myself, disagreed with the fundamental premise
of the stimulus bill, the President blamed his stimulus bill's failure
on the lack of shovel-ready projects. As he put it, ``Shovel-ready was
not as shovel-ready as we expected.''
Mr. Chairman, that is the problem that today's legislation--the RAPID
Act--is intended to solve.
This legislation fulfills post-stimulus bill calls of leaders in
Congress, the White House, the President's Council on Jobs and
Competitiveness, and the private sector to streamline the review of
Federal construction permit applications. It contains well-thought-out,
balanced reforms that provide for more efficient and effective
decision-making.
Stated succinctly, the RAPID Act gives lead Federal agencies more
responsibility to conduct and conclude efficient interagency reviews of
permit requests, demands that any entity challenging a final permitting
decision in court first have presented the substance of its claims
during the agency review process, and requires that lawsuits
challenging permitting decisions be filed within 6 months of the
decisions, not 6 years, as the law currently allows.
These are simple, but powerful, reforms that will allow good projects
to move forward more quickly, delivering high-quality jobs and
improvements to Americans' daily lives.
Prior iterations of the RAPID Act passed the House three times during
the 112th and 113th Congresses, each time with bipartisan support.
Once enacted, this legislation will help to create millions of high-
paying jobs and make government decision-making more efficient and
effective.
Importantly, it will also continue to ensure that the impacts of new
projects on the environment can be considered responsibly before
permitting decisions are made.
I thank Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee
Chairman Marino of Pennsylvania for introducing this legislation.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the RAPID Act.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues, I rise in rather strong opposition to the measure
before us, H.R. 348, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating
Development Act of 2015, or its nickname, the RAPID Act.
H.R. 348 has a number of flaws. I won't try to go into each and every
one of them. Most critically, this measure would jeopardize public
safety and health by prioritizing project approval over meaningful
analysis that is currently required under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
By giving the proponents of construction projects greater control
over the environmental approval process, this bill is the equivalent of
giving Wall Street the authority to write its own regulations for
financial responsibility. The bill accomplishes this result in several
respects.
To begin with, under the guise of streamlining the approval process,
H.R. 348 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 the task. This is an embarrassment, my friends.
As a result, H.R. 348 could allow projects that put public health and
safety at risk to be approved before the safety review is completed.
This failing of the bill, along with some others, explains why the
administration and the President's Council on Environmental Quality,
along with more than 40 respected environmental groups, vigorously
oppose this legislation before us today.
These organizations include Public Citizen, the League of
Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra
Club, and The Wilderness Society. Likewise, the administration has
appropriately issued a veto threat.
Stating 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,
the administration warns that, if H.R. 348 ever became law, it would
lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the
permitting process, and, ultimately, hamper economic growth.
Another concern, among many, that I have with this measure 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, for instance, states
that highway construction project delays based on environmental
requirements stem not from the National Environmental Policy Act, but
from laws other than the National Environmental Policy Act.
In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that the primary
source of approval delays for these projects are more often tied to
local or State and project-specific factors, primarily local or State
agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a
project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope.
Undoubtedly, the so-called RAPID Act will make the process less clear
and less protective of public health and safety.
My final major concern with this bill is that, rather than
streamlining the environmental review process, which we need to do, it
will sow utter confusion.
H.R. 348 does this by creating a separate, but only partly parallel,
environmental review process for construction projects, which will
cause confusion, delay, and litigation.
As I have noted, the changes to the National Environmental Policy
Act's review process, as contemplated by the measure before us today,
apply only to certain construction projects.
The National Environmental Policy Act, on the other hand, 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 two 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, the measure
before us will complicate it and generate more litigation. More
importantly, this bill is yet another effort by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to undermine regulatory protections.
As with all of the other regulatory bills, this measure is a thinly
disguised effort to hobble the ability of Federal agencies to do the
work the Congress requires that it does.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to strenuously oppose this
seriously flawed bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chief sponsor of this legislation and
the chairman of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, once again, my good friends on the other side think we
need more government, more EPA overreach, more regulation, to continue
the $19 trillion of debt that we have and to continue the flawed job
opportunities of this administration's over the past 6 years.
Once again, today we consider the RAPID Act. As the gentleman from
Virginia stated, during the 112th and
[[Page H6209]]
113th Congresses, the House passed this bill on three separate
occasions in a bipartisan fashion.
Once again, we are considering a number of important regulatory
reforms that present the potential for immediately impactful economic
growth across our Nation.
Our Federal permitting process is undeniably broken. Duplicative
environmental reviews have clogged decision-making for years.
Although recent studies have shown that, on average, an environmental
impact study will take 3 to 4 years, the permitting process for many
projects takes years more or, sadly, even decades.
Even more disappointing are indications that average environmental
review times are increasing by over a month per year.
Furthermore, final decision-making has been driven by political whims
rather than by the merits of any particular project that would be borne
through economic growth and job creation.
Political pressure should never impede projects of worth that would
get Americans back to work. One recent study found that 7 years of
delay on the Keystone pipeline have kept us from realizing nearly $175
billion in potential economic activity. At a time when true economic
recovery lags and more Americans become disheartened and leave the
workforce, such delays are unacceptable.
The RAPID Act reforms remove government obstructions from the
equation by implementing hard deadlines for environmental review, and
they shorten the window for judicial review. It doesn't take review
away. It shortens it to a reasonable period of time.
We cannot delay while our infrastructure--from highways and bridges
to transmission lines and waterways--crumbles around us in America's
counties, towns, and cities.
I look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate to bring
this bill to the President's desk, and I hope that we can get this
country working again.
Federal agencies and departments and employees have to be held
accountable just like we are in private industry. They cannot sit back
and let these permits and these issues stack up on their desks while
they play games on their computers.
I have hope that we can get this bill through and the country working
again. Please support the RAPID Act.
{time} 1530
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking subcommittee member.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 348, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development
Act, or the RAPID Act. But if I had my druthers, I would change it to
the ``Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Diversion Act,'' or
RAPID Act.
I would say that it is a diversion because we have got important work
to do in this Chamber, Mr. Chair. Everybody knows that we are
approaching the end of the fiscal year. It will be here in 6 short
days.
During this whole month of September--we are at September 24 today--
we have had a total of 8 legislative days during this month, knowing
that we are coming up to the end of the fiscal year and we need to pass
a spending bill to keep the government open and operating. We have been
knowing this.
We spent 6 weeks in August, from July to September, a total of about
6 weeks at home lounging while the Nation's business in Washington,
D.C., went undone. We have spent a total of 8 legislative days out of
the 24 days in September doing everything other than addressing the
looming issue, which is the coming, or impending, government shutdown.
Now, we are here today. We just took one vote. This is the first
legislative day of this week. We have got one business day left. The
first legislative day, after hearing from the Pope, we have just had
our last vote for the day. It was our one and only vote for the day,
and it was to rename a post office.
We are coming up on the government shutdown, and what are we dealing
with? Instead of dealing with the Nation's finances, we are dealing
with this RAPID Act, which, as I said, is a diversion from the real
duty that we need to be taking care of today.
H.R. 348, the RAPID Act, is a misguided attempt to sow widespread
confusion and delay in the review and permitting process under the
National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
For over 40 years, the approval process for projects under NEPA has
saved time, money, and protected the environment, which the Pope spoke
of our need to protect today. In fact, since NEPA was enacted, the U.S.
economy has not contracted. It has actually tripled in size from just
over $5 trillion to more than $16 trillion.
Among other things, NEPA requires agencies to prepare a detailed
environmental review for proposals relating to ``major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.'' NEPA's
purpose is to provide a framework for wide-ranging input from all
affected interests when a Federal agency conducts an environmental
review of a proposed project.
H.R. 348, the so-called RAPID Act, upends this review process in
three ways:
First, H.R. 348 carves out a separate environmental review process
for construction projects. Currently, NEPA applies to a broad range of
Federal projects, including hunting permits, land management plans,
military base realignment and closure activities, and treaties. In
contrast, H.R. 348 only applies to a subset of these Federal projects,
creating more regulatory complexity in the permitting system, not less.
Second, section (c) of the RAPID Act allows any project sponsor to
prepare an environmental document in lieu of such analysis by the lead
agency. It is not difficult to imagine the shortcomings of allowing
corporations, which seek to maximize shareholder value, to sit in the
driver's seat on environmental policy. In fact, that is why we have
such environmental degradation today.
During a legislative hearing on H.R. 348, Amit Narang, a regulatory
policy advocate for Public Citizen, compared section (c) to ``asking
big banks to determine the costs and benefits of new Wall Street reform
rules, or big energy companies to determine the costs and benefits of
new climate change or air pollution measures.''
The inherent conflict of interest built into this section reveals the
bill's clear design to allow project sponsors to manipulate the NEPA
permit approval process to the greatest extent possible. It is clear
that not only does this Republican bill task the fox with guarding the
henhouse, it would also have him install the chicken wire as well.
Finally, under section (i) of H.R. 348, if an agency fails to meet
the unrealistic deadlines mandated by H.R. 348, the bill would
automatically green-light a Federal construction project, regardless of
whether or not the agency has thoroughly reviewed the project's risks.
Even if I were to set aside these concerns, it is difficult for me to
look past the complete lack of empirical data supporting the premise of
the RAPID Act, which is that agency compliance with NEPA is the cause
of delays in approving permits.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported in 2012 that
project approval delays based on environmental requirements are not
caused by NEPA, but ``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.''
Similarly, Dinah Bear, who served as the general counsel for the
White House Council on Environmental Quality which oversees NEPA's
implementation, for over 20 years under both Republican and Democratic
administrations, testified in the 112th Congress that most delays in
the environmental review process are not the result of NEPA, but due to
other factors entirely unrelated to NEPA.
In other words, the RAPID Act does nothing to address the lack of
adequate funds allocated to Federal construction projects or State-
based barriers to the timely completion of construction projects, which
are two of the most common delays and have nothing to do with
regulatory permits under NEPA.
So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided
legislation.
[[Page H6210]]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Mr. Marino,
and Mr. Smith for working on this important bill and bringing it to the
House floor.
Speeding up the regulatory process in the United States is an
important issue in keeping America competitive. The methodical, slow,
snail-paced decision or lack of decision process of the EPA to make a
decision on whether or not to approve a project is absurd.
The RAPID Act addresses the problem of extensive requirements and
growing delays in Federal permitting and approvals for construction
projects stemming from multiple agencies, excessive requirements, and
unnecessary lawsuits.
According to an April 2014 report issued by the GAO, the average
preparation time for the required environmental impact statement
finalized in 2012 was over 4\1/2\ years. Now, the environmental impact
statement is just the first requirement in getting a permit.
Four-and-a-half years--World War II took less time than it takes the
EPA to make a decision on whether or not to approve a project. They
just continue to study and study and study. Mr. Chair, it is about time
for the EPA to pick a horse and ride it, make a decision about these
projects.
I am not going to talk in theory. I am going to talk about an actual
project down in my congressional district.
The Sabine-Neches Waterway, most Americans have never heard of it.
The Sabine-Neches waterway is what some of us call ``the other Texas
international border.'' It is the waterway between Louisiana and Texas.
We have been wanting, since 1997, to deepen that 40-foot waterway to 48
feet. That is just 8 feet. We just want to make it a little deeper so
ships can come in and off-load their cargo and off-load their fuel.
What they are doing now, they can't come in with a full load of fuel
on those tankers. They have to off-load it, sometimes 20 percent, in
the Gulf of Mexico and then bring in the rest. That costs money. We
just want 8 feet.
So in 1997, my predecessors asked the EPA for an environmental impact
statement and finally got that impact statement. It took 20 years to
get an impact statement. I have had 11 grandkids since I have been in
Congress, and that impact statement has been pending all that time.
We just want 8 feet. Is it okay? The EPA finally made a decision, but
yet we still haven't started moving dirt.
The original project was about $600 million. Now, it is about $1.3
billion, and we still don't have that extra 8 feet. Why? Because the
bureaucrats can't make a decision. Delay, delay, delay.
That is the name of the EPA: Delay, Delay, Delay. All this bill does,
it says to this bureaucracy, study the information, reach a conclusion,
and approve the project if it ought to be approved so America can be
competitive worldwide. But, no, the other side says: Well, we need more
studies; we need more information.
Mr. Chair, if Teddy Roosevelt would have had to deal with the EPA in
building the Panama Canal, it would have never been built because of
all the regulatory requirements--some unnecessary, in my opinion.
So let's approve the RAPID Act. Let's get America working again. The
Sabine-Neches Waterway has numerous refineries on it. It is the energy
hub of the United States. We just want 8 feet, Mr. Chair. That is all
we want. Pick a horse and ride it. The EPA needs to get their act
together.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ted Lieu).
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 348,
also known as the RAPID Act. This bill will rapidly cause environmental
degradation.
Under this bill, if it became law, you could have projects that harm
the environment that are deemed approved, even if the review process
was not yet completed. That is crazy. Keep in mind, we have had over 60
straight months of job creation under the Obama administration. Those
are the facts.
This bill is written in such a way that it will cause confusion. It
will cause increased delays and limit public involvement in this
important process. It is also unscientific.
There is a provision in this bill that says we cannot count the
social cost of carbon. Now, I believe in a free market, and I believe
that that has made America strong, but we can't have government
artificially come in and say we are going to say things are costs and
things are not costs when it is not scientifically based.
We know that carbon has done a lot to increase climate change and
caused global warming. That is why I, along with Representatives
Peters, Polis, and Lowenthal, have introduced an amendment to put that
language back in. We can't just say stop talking and ignore carbon.
Keep in mind, just a few hours ago, Pope Francis came in to a joint
session of Congress and told us to really revert and look at what we
have done in terms of causing environmental degradation.
{time} 1545
Now, just a few hours later, we are back to attacking the
environment. This is not right.
I urge that we not support the RAPID Act.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself to say to the
gentleman from California that we may have 60 straight months of
increased job creation, but the average American worker is making 5
percent less than they were before those 60 months began. The reason is
that we are overregulating our economy.
If we are really going to create jobs, we have got to have the
infrastructure to do it. We have got to have the projects like were
just described by Congressman Poe of Texas.
Just 8 more feet of depth would bring a lot more jobs to east Texas
and to Louisiana by being able to bring that product further up inland.
These kind of projects require careful environmental assessment, but
it doesn't require assessment that takes 20 years to take place. It
should take place in a much more limited period of time.
This bill helps to encourage focusing the mind on what needs to get
done. That includes taking careful consideration of the environment,
but it doesn't include delay, delay, delay.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Hardy), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Committee on Natural Resources, both of which understand the
importance of these projects.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, before I had the privilege of being elected
to the 114th Congress, I spent more than four decades in the
construction industry.
After growing up as a fifth-generation son of a farmer and rancher, I
set out to learn the trades and acquire the skills that would one day
allow me to support myself and my family.
Over the course of those four decades in construction, I learned what
it takes to start and run a successful business and how to create
quality, good-paying jobs.
I also learned the satisfaction of seeing the fruits of our labor in
the roads, bridges, and dams we built and how they define the
communities we serve.
Mr. Chairman, small construction businesses like the one I used to
own are struggling all across America from Federal bureaucracy that is
rife with delays, duplication, and uncertainty.
I can speak from firsthand experience about construction projects
that have ground to a halt as resources are redirected to navigate the
onerous NEPA process.
On projects like the ones I used to manage, NEPA delays meant idled
equipment, mass layoffs, and millions of dollars going towards
compliance. These are sunk costs on the macro level and will continue
to hold our economy back.
We need to get smart about environment protection and to ensure that
we do it in ways that allow businesses to thrive. H.R. 348, the RAPID
Act, will go a long way toward achieving that goal.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling
[[Page H6211]]
and far too many are in search of quality employment, we have the
responsibility to give manufacturers, construction workers, and other
engines of economic growth the certainty they desperately need to
create high-paying jobs.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the RAPID Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of our
committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my friend, Chairman Goodlatte,
bemoaned the fact that, over the last 64 straight months of job growth
under the Obama administration, wages have remained stagnant.
That is true except for the wages of the top 10 percent, and
specifically the top 1 percent, which have gone through the roof
despite what he calls overregulation.
We continue to have the problem of income disparity that Pope Francis
mentioned today. It is unrelated to this issue of regulations which are
there to protect people. They, in fact, protect people and they protect
our environment.
We have had a speaker today come in and talk about a dredging project
that was delayed because of NEPA, but, actually, the truth of the
matter is that that project was delayed due to lack of funding. Funding
for the project was only authorized last year.
While the Republicans in Congress sit around and talk about how much
the regulatory agencies study and study and study, what we do in
Congress is simply ignore the funding needs for infrastructure in this
country, which is what that dredging project was all about.
I have got a project down in Georgia, the Savannah Harbor Expansion
Project, which was estimated to cost $652 million to complete.
But prior to the passage of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act last year, the Federal Government had only provided
$1.28 million--$1.28 million--less than 1 percent.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaMalfa). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let's take it back to the year
2011 with the Ryan Budget Control Act, which imposed sequestration on
the Federal Government, cutting both defense and nondefense spending 10
percent across the board.
We can't have it both ways. If we are not going to fund, we have to
admit that that is the reason these projects are not getting done.
Don't blame it on NEPA.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Members of the committee, do not be misled by the title of this bill.
Rather than effectuating real reforms to the process by which Federal
agencies undertake environmental impact reviews, as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act, this measure before us will actually
result in making the process less responsible, less professional, and
less accountable.
These kinds of attempts are not new to this session of Congress.
Accordingly, I urge that my colleagues carefully consider the
discussion on this measure and oppose H.R. 348.
ORGANIZATIONS THAT OPPOSE H.R. 348, the RAPID ACT
Alaska Wilderness League, American Rivers, Center for
Biological Diversity, Citizens for Global Solutions, Clean
Air Task Force, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action,
Conservation Colorado, Conservatives for Responsible
Stewardship, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, EDF Action,
Environmental Law and Policy Center, Epic--Environmental
Protection Information Center, Energy Action Coalition,
Friends of the Earth, Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy,
Green Latinos, Kentucky Heartwood.
Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center,
KyotoUSA, League of Conservation Voters, Los Padres
ForestWatch, Marine Conservation Institute, Montana
Environmental Information Center, National Parks Conservation
Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Energy
Economy, New Jersey Sierra Club, Oceana, Ocean Conservation
Research, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, Safe Climate
Campaign, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center,
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, SustainUS.
Union of Concerned Scientists, Western Environmental Law
Center, The Wilderness Society.
____
September 17, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and activists, we are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 348
the misleadingly named ``Responsibly and Professionally
Invigorating Development Act of 2015.'' Instead of improving
the permitting process, the bill will severely undermine the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, consequently,
the quality and integrity of federal agency decisions.
The National Environmental Policy Act plays a critical role
in ensuring that projects are carried out in a transparent,
collaborative, and responsible manner. NEPA simply requires
federal agencies to assess the environmental, economic, and
public health impacts of proposals, solicit the input of all
affected stakeholders, and disclose their findings publicly
before undertaking projects that may significantly affect the
environment. Critically, NEPA recognizes that the public--
which includes industry, citizens, local and state
governments, and business owners--can make important
contributions by providing unique expertise. NEPA also gives
a voice to the most impacted and underrepresented, especially
to the most vulnerable communities who usually have to bear
the most burden of where federal projects are proposed in the
first place. However, H.R. 348 strikes at these core purposes
of NEPA by systematically prioritizing speed of decisions and
project approval over the public interest.
Studies on the causes of delay in the permitting process
reveal that the primary cause of delay is not the NEPA
process. Rather, as multiple studies by the Government
Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service
have pointed out, the principal causes of delay in permitting
rest outside the NEPA process entirely and are attributable
to other factors such as lack of funding, project complexity,
and local opposition to the project. The RAPID Act ignores
the true causes of delay, and instead, focuses on
institutionalizing dangerous ``reforms'' that restrict public
input, limit review of the environmental and economic impacts
of projects, and that create more, not less, bureaucracy.
Provisions in the RAPID Act, such as the following, will
create more delays in permitting, result in less flexibility
in the process, and tilt the entire permitting process
towards shareholder interest, not the public interest. For
example, the bill:
Places Arbitrary Limitations on Environmental Reviews--
Section 560(i) of the bill threatens to undermine NEPA's goal
of informed decision-making and the agency's role of acting
in the public interest. It sets arbitrary deadlines on
environmental reviews of permits, licenses, or other
applications--regardless of the possible economic, health, or
environmental impacts. Consequently, it puts communities at
risk by promoting rushed and faulty decisions.
Limits Consideration of Alternatives--Section 560(g)
strikes at what CEQ regulations describe as ``the heart of
the NEPA process'' by restricting the range of reasonable
alternatives to be considered by an agency.
Creates Serious Conflicts of Interests--Section 560(c)
blurs the distinct roles of private entities and agencies in
agency decisions by allowing private project sponsors with
stakes in the decision to prepare environmental review
documents which creates inherent conflicts of interest and
thus jeopardizes the integrity of the decision-making
process.
Leading to Unanticipated Delays--The bill forces
stakeholders into court preemptively simply to preserve their
right to judicial review. The bill also limits the public's
judicial access to challenge and address faulty environmental
reviews which in turn is likely to increase the controversy
and the amount of litigation derived from the permitting
process which in turn could add to project delays.
Denies the Impacts of Climate Change--Section 560(k) of the
bill prohibits any considerations of the Social Cost of
Carbon (SCC), which the EPA and other federal agencies use to
estimate the economic damages associated with specific
projects and their related carbon dioxide emissions. The tool
is critical for the public to understand the true benefits
and costs of a project. Ignoring climate change puts critical
infrastructure, tax payer dollars, and local communities at
risk.
Provisions such as these and many more in the RAPID Act
will only serve to increase delay and confusion around the
environmental review process. We believe compromising the
quality of environmental review and limiting the role of the
public is the wrong approach.
Far from being broken, the National Environmental Policy
Act has proven its worth as an invaluable tool. It ensures
that the public, developers, and agencies have a reliable
template for consistent and fair proposal assessment for
major projects that may impact federal resources. The RAPID
Act contradicts and jeopardizes decades of experience gained
from enacting this critical environmental law. Further, it
tips the balance away from informed decisions and public
oversight, jeopardizing the public's ability to participate
in how public resources will be managed. Please oppose this
unnecessary and overreaching piece of legislation and vote
``no'' on the RAPID Act.
[[Page H6212]]
Although no amendment would remedy the problems with the
underlying bill, we make the following vote recommendations
on amendments offered to the RAPID Act.
Vote no on Goodlatte (R-VA) #1--This amendment would prompt
ill-informed decisions by limiting the role of cooperating
agencies in the environmental review process. It would also
severely limit the public's ability to use the courts their
rights by requiring eventual plaintiffs to participate in
drastically shortened comment periods and administrative
proceedings that, in many cases, agencies do not provide.
Vote yes on Peters (D-CA) #2--This amendment ensures that
the true impacts of climate change are considered by allowing
agencies to consider the social costs of carbon when
conducting environmental reviews. Agencies should be free to
incorporate the social cost of carbon into the agency
decision making process, which will result in better informed
and responsible decisions that safely invest taxpayer dollars
by taking into account climate change, the fundamental
environmental issue of our time.
Vote yes on Jackson Lee (D-TX) #3--This amendment will undo
one of the more pernicious provisions in the H.R. 348 which,
in cases where an agency fails to meet arbitrary deadlines
prescribed by the bill, projects are simply deemed approved
regardless of their economic, health, or environmental
impacts. The bill, without this amendment, puts communities
at risk by green-lighting projects without fully considering
environmental impacts or the opinions of those who will be
impacted the most.
Vote yes on Jackson Lee (D-TX) #4--This amendment maintains
national security by undoing hasty shortcuts in the
permitting process and rightly ensuring a full review for
projects that could be potential targets for terrorist
attacks. This amendment wisely ensures that shortcutting
critical federal review of projects does not apply those
projects that most need informed decisions because of the
tremendous impacts they may have on our national security.
Vote yes on Johnson (D-GA) #5--This amendment rightly
ensures that nothing in the bill will limit input of affected
stakeholders, local governments, private property owners, or
business owners.
Vote yes on Dingell (D-MI) #6--This amendment would prevent
project approvals under the arbitrary timelines set forth in
the bill if the project under consideration would limit
access to or opportunities for hunting or fishing or would
impact threatened or endangered species. According to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife related
recreation contributes more than $140 billion dollars to
the U.S. economy and supports thousands of jobs connected
to fishing, hunting, and the observance of wildlife.
Vote yes on Gallego (D-AZ) #8--This amendment preserves
meaningful input by local governments and tribal officials on
projects affecting their communities by allowing them to
request extensions of the arbitrary deadlines in the bill.
Vote yes on Grijalva (D-AZ) #9--The shortcutting of
meaningful public input and review of a project's impacts
under the RAPID Act could potentially lead to
disproportionate impacts on low-income communities and
communities of color. This amendment ensures such impacts are
carefully addressed during the review of project
alternatives.
Vote yes on Lowenthal (D-CA) #10--The truncated review
procedures under the RAPID Act would potentially apply to
construction projects of enormous size, scope, and
complexity. Climate change poses severe threats to the
health, safety, and economies of local communities through
the increased risks of floods, fire and severe weather. This
amendment ensures federal agencies consider these impacts and
construct projects that are resilient to the impacts of
climate change.
Vote no on Gosar (R-AZ) #11--This amendment would broaden
one of the most damaging provisions of the bill which
prevents Federal agencies from considering the true costs of
climate change, putting communities and tax-payer dollars at
risk.
Whatever the outcome of these amendments, we urge a no vote
on final passage.
Sincerely,
Leah Donahey, Senior Campaign Director, Alaska Wilderness
League; Jim Bradley, Vice President, Policy and
Government Relations, American Rivers; Bill Snape,
Senior Counsel, Center for Biological Diversity; Tony
Fleming, Campaigns Director, Citizens for Global
Solutions; Joseph Otis Minott, Executive Director &
Chief Counsel, Clean Air Council; Conrad Schneider,
Advocacy Director, Clean Air Task Force; Lynn Thorp,
National Campaigns Director, Clean Water Action; Luke
Schafer, West Slope Advocacy Director, Conservation
Colorado; David Jenkins, President, Conservatives for
Responsible Stewardship; Raul Garcia, Associate
Legislative Counsel, Earthjustice; Elizabeth B.
Thompson, President, EDF Action; Lydia Avila, Executive
Director, Energy Action Coalition; Karen E. Torrent,
Esq., Federal Legislative Director, Environmental Law
and Policy Center; Natalynne DeLapp, Executive
Director, Epic-Environmental Protection Information
Center; Marissa Knodel, Climate Campaigner, Friends of
the Earth; Mark Magana, President, Green Latinos;
Colette Pichon Battle, Esq., Executive Director, Gulf
Coast Center for Law & Policy; Jim Scheff, Director,
Kentucky Heartwood; Kimberly Baker, Executive Director,
Klamath Forest Alliance; Mary Beth Beetham, Director of
Legislative Affairs, Defenders of Wildlife; George
Sexton, Conservation Director, Klamath Siskiyou
Wildlands Center; Tom Kelly, Executive Director,
KyotoUSA; Zach Drennen, Government Affairs Associate,
League of Conservation Voters; Jeff Kuyper, Executive
Director, Los Padres ForestWatch; Michael Gravitz,
Director of Policy and Legislation, Marine Conservation
Institute; Anne Hedges, Deputy Director, Montana
Environmental Information Center; Craig D. Obey, Senior
Vice President, Government Affairs, National Parks
Conservation Association; Sharon Buccino, Director,
Lands & Wildlife Program, Natural Resources Defense
Council; Mariel Nanasi, Executive Director, New Energy
Economy; Jeff Tittel, Director, New Jersey Sierra Club;
Jacqueline Savitz, Vice President, U.S. Oceans, Oceana;
Michael Stocker, Director, Ocean Conservation Research;
David J. Arkush, Managing Director, Climate Program,
Public Citizen; Rober K. Musil, Ph.D., M.P.H.,
President, Rachel Carson Council, Inc.; Daniel Becker,
Director, Safe Climate Campaign; Liz Martin Perera,
Climate Policy Director, Sierra Club; Navis A.
Bermudez, Deputy Legislative Director, Southern
Environmental Law Center; Alan Journet, Co-Facilitator,
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now; Adam Hasz, Chair,
SustainUS; Andrew Rosenberg, Director, Center for
Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists;
Katy Siddall, Director of Government Relations, Energy,
The Wilderness Society; Erik Schlenker-Goodrich,
Executive Director, Western Environmental Law Center.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, first, to the gentleman from Georgia, let me just say
that the Water Resources Development Act, which passed this House, has
in it the same streamlining provisions of the permitting processes for
the projects that it would fund that are based on the ideas in this
bill.
Why? Because we know that, just because we come up with the funds for
something, those funds can be churned and churned and churned year
after year after year in the permitting process and never ever get to a
permit so the underlying construction can take place in Texas or
Savannah, Georgia, or Virginia, or all of the other places where
infrastructure projects are needed.
Part of the enormous cost of it is the enormous process that we go
through and the length of that process and the review and review and
review that never gets to a decision.
During the debate over this bill this term and last, we have heard
several false alarms from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
For example, we have heard that the bill does not allow enough time for
environmental reviews to be completed.
But, with all due respect, the bill, when necessary, allows as much
time for the completion of an environmental impact statement as it took
our Nation to win World War II. Surely that is time enough.
We have heard that the bill will generate more litigation because
there may be litigation over what its new terms mean, but that argument
can be made against any reform legislation. If it were a valid and
sufficient reason to defeat legislation, we would never pass another
reform bill.
Furthermore, the bill for the first time requires litigants to
present their claims to permit agencies before they sue in court and to
file lawsuits no later than 180 days after the agency's final
decisions. That will reduce litigation, not increase it.
We have also heard that the White House has threatened to veto the
bill. Mr. Chairman, that is what is truly alarming. This legislation
fulfills the calls of the President's Council on Jobs and
Competitiveness to streamline the review of Federal permit
applications. We are doing that in this legislation.
It creates shovel-ready projects, which even President Obama claims
would create jobs. In fact, it would generate millions of high-paying,
good jobs for our Nation's workers and families, who so desperately
need them. It would raise the standard of living of Americans.
The White House should not be issuing threats to veto the
legislation. The White House should be running to lend its support to
this bill.
[[Page H6213]]
Ignore the false alarms and embrace the commonsense reforms in this
bill. Pass the RAPID Act, call the President's bluff, give the Nation
shovel-ready projects.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
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.
Hardy), having assumed the chair, Mr. LaMalfa, 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. 348) 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.
____________________