[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.

                          ____________________