[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 139 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6232-H6247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  RESPONSIBLY AND PROFESSIONALLY INVIGORATING DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. MARINO. 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. LaMalfa). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 348.
  Will the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  0910


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
September 24, 2015, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-26. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 348

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Responsibly And 
     Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015'' or as 
     the ``RAPID Act''.

     SEC. 2. COORDINATION OF AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS FOR 
                   EFFICIENT DECISIONMAKING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of part 1 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after subchapter II the 
     following:

    ``SUBCHAPTER IIA--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION REGARDING PERMITTING

     ``Sec. 560. Coordination of agency administrative operations 
       for efficient decisionmaking

       ``(a) Congressional Declaration of Purpose.--The purpose of 
     this subchapter is to establish a framework and procedures to 
     streamline, increase the efficiency of, and enhance 
     coordination of agency administration of the regulatory 
     review, environmental decisionmaking, and permitting process 
     for projects undertaken, reviewed, or funded by Federal 
     agencies. This subchapter will ensure that agencies 
     administer the regulatory process in a manner that is 
     efficient so that citizens are not burdened with regulatory 
     excuses and time delays.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter, the 
     term--
       ``(1) `agency' means any agency, department, or other unit 
     of Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal government;
       ``(2) `category of projects' means 2 or more projects 
     related by project type, potential environmental impacts, 
     geographic location, or another similar project feature or 
     characteristic;
       ``(3) `environmental assessment' means a concise public 
     document for which a Federal agency is responsible that 
     serves to--
       ``(A) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for 
     determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 
     statement or a finding of no significant impact;
       ``(B) aid an agency's compliance with NEPA when no 
     environmental impact statement is necessary; and
       ``(C) facilitate preparation of an environmental impact 
     statement when one is necessary;
       ``(4) `environmental impact statement' means the detailed 
     statement of significant environmental impacts required to be 
     prepared under NEPA;
       ``(5) `environmental review' means the Federal agency 
     procedures for preparing an environmental impact statement, 
     environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, or other 
     document under NEPA;
       ``(6) `environmental decisionmaking process' means the 
     Federal agency procedures for undertaking and completion of 
     any environmental permit, decision, approval, review, or 
     study under any Federal law other than NEPA for a project 
     subject to an environmental review;
       ``(7) `environmental document' means an environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement, and includes 
     any supplemental document or document prepared pursuant to a 
     court order;

[[Page H6233]]

       ``(8) `finding of no significant impact' means a document 
     by a Federal agency briefly presenting the reasons why a 
     project, not otherwise subject to a categorical exclusion, 
     will not have a significant effect on the human environment 
     and for which an environmental impact statement therefore 
     will not be prepared;
       ``(9) `lead agency' means the Federal agency preparing or 
     responsible for preparing the environmental document;
       ``(10) `NEPA' means the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       ``(11) `project' means major Federal actions that are 
     construction activities undertaken with Federal funds or that 
     are construction activities that require approval by a permit 
     or regulatory decision issued by a Federal agency;
       ``(12) `project sponsor' means the agency or other entity, 
     including any private or public-private entity, that seeks 
     approval for a project or is otherwise responsible for 
     undertaking a project; and
       ``(13) `record of decision' means a document prepared by a 
     lead agency under NEPA following an environmental impact 
     statement that states the lead agency's decision, identifies 
     the alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its 
     decision and states whether all practicable means to avoid or 
     minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected 
     have been adopted, and if not, why they were not adopted.
       ``(c) Preparation of Environmental Documents.--Upon the 
     request of the lead agency, the project sponsor shall be 
     authorized to prepare any document for purposes of an 
     environmental review required in support of any project or 
     approval by the lead agency if the lead agency furnishes 
     oversight in such preparation and independently evaluates 
     such document and the document is approved and adopted by the 
     lead agency prior to taking any action or making any approval 
     based on such document.
       ``(d) Adoption and Use of Documents.--
       ``(1) Documents prepared under nepa.--
       ``(A) Not more than 1 environmental impact statement and 1 
     environmental assessment shall be prepared under NEPA for a 
     project (except for supplemental environmental documents 
     prepared under NEPA or environmental documents prepared 
     pursuant to a court order), and, except as otherwise provided 
     by law, the lead agency shall prepare the environmental 
     impact statement or environmental assessment. After the lead 
     agency issues a record of decision, no Federal agency 
     responsible for making any approval for that project may rely 
     on a document other than the environmental document prepared 
     by the lead agency.
       ``(B) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a lead agency 
     may adopt, use, or rely upon secondary and cumulative impact 
     analyses included in any environmental document prepared 
     under NEPA for projects in the same geographic area where the 
     secondary and cumulative impact analyses provide information 
     and data that pertains to the NEPA decision for the project 
     under review.
       ``(2) State environmental documents; supplemental 
     documents.--
       ``(A) Upon the request of a project sponsor, a lead agency 
     may adopt a document that has been prepared for a project 
     under State laws and procedures as the environmental impact 
     statement or environmental assessment for the project, 
     provided that the State laws and procedures under which the 
     document was prepared provide environmental protection and 
     opportunities for public involvement that are substantially 
     equivalent to NEPA.
       ``(B) An environmental document adopted under subparagraph 
     (A) is deemed to satisfy the lead agency's obligation under 
     NEPA to prepare an environmental impact statement or 
     environmental assessment.
       ``(C) In the case of a document described in subparagraph 
     (A), during the period after preparation of the document but 
     before its adoption by the lead agency, the lead agency shall 
     prepare and publish a supplement to that document if the lead 
     agency determines that--
       ``(i) a significant change has been made to the project 
     that is relevant for purposes of environmental review of the 
     project; or
       ``(ii) there have been significant changes in circumstances 
     or availability of information relevant to the environmental 
     review for the project.
       ``(D) If the agency prepares and publishes a supplemental 
     document under subparagraph (C), the lead agency may solicit 
     comments from agencies and the public on the supplemental 
     document for a period of not more than 45 days beginning on 
     the date of the publication of the supplement.
       ``(E) A lead agency shall issue its record of decision or 
     finding of no significant impact, as appropriate, based upon 
     the document adopted under subparagraph (A), and any 
     supplements thereto.
       ``(3) Contemporaneous projects.--If the lead agency 
     determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that the 
     project will have similar environmental impacts as a similar 
     project in geographical proximity to the project, and that 
     similar project was subject to environmental review or 
     similar State procedures within the 5-year period immediately 
     preceding the date that the lead agency makes that 
     determination, the lead agency may adopt the environmental 
     document that resulted from that environmental review or 
     similar State procedure. The lead agency may adopt such an 
     environmental document, if it is prepared under State laws 
     and procedures only upon making a favorable determination on 
     such environmental document pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(e) Participating Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The lead agency shall be responsible for 
     inviting and designating participating agencies in accordance 
     with this subsection. The lead agency shall provide the 
     invitation or notice of the designation in writing.
       ``(2) Federal participating agencies.--Any Federal agency 
     that is required to adopt the environmental document of the 
     lead agency for a project shall be designated as a 
     participating agency and shall collaborate on the preparation 
     of the environmental document, unless the Federal agency 
     informs the lead agency, in writing, by a time specified by 
     the lead agency in the designation of the Federal agency that 
     the Federal agency--
       ``(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
     project;
       ``(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the 
     project; and
       ``(C) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
       ``(3) Invitation.--The lead agency shall identify, as early 
     as practicable in the environmental review for a project, any 
     agencies other than an agency described in paragraph (2) that 
     may have an interest in the project, including, where 
     appropriate, Governors of affected States, and heads of 
     appropriate tribal and local (including county) governments, 
     and shall invite such identified agencies and officials to 
     become participating agencies in the environmental review for 
     the project. The invitation shall set a deadline of 30 days 
     for responses to be submitted, which may only be extended by 
     the lead agency for good cause shown. Any agency that fails 
     to respond prior to the deadline shall be deemed to have 
     declined the invitation.
       ``(4) Effect of declining participating agency 
     invitation.--Any agency that declines a designation or 
     invitation by the lead agency to be a participating agency 
     shall be precluded from submitting comments on any document 
     prepared under NEPA for that project or taking any measures 
     to oppose, based on the environmental review, any permit, 
     license, or approval related to that project.
       ``(5) Effect of designation.--Designation as a 
     participating agency under this subsection does not imply 
     that the participating agency--
       ``(A) supports a proposed project; or
       ``(B) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with 
     respect to evaluation of, the project.
       ``(6) Cooperating agency.--A participating agency may also 
     be designated by a lead agency as a `cooperating agency' 
     under the regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2011. 
     Designation as a cooperating agency shall have no effect on 
     designation as participating agency. No agency that is not a 
     participating agency may be designated as a cooperating 
     agency.
       ``(7) Concurrent reviews.--Each Federal agency shall--
       ``(A) carry out obligations of the Federal agency under 
     other applicable law concurrently and in conjunction with the 
     review required under NEPA; and
       ``(B) in accordance with the rules made by the Council on 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to subsection (n)(1), make and 
     carry out such rules, policies, and procedures as may be 
     reasonably necessary to enable the agency to ensure 
     completion of the environmental review and environmental 
     decisionmaking process in a timely, coordinated, and 
     environmentally responsible manner.
       ``(8) Comments.--Each participating agency shall limit its 
     comments on a project to areas that are within the authority 
     and expertise of such participating agency. Each 
     participating agency shall identify in such comments the 
     statutory authority of the participating agency pertaining to 
     the subject matter of its comments. The lead agency shall not 
     act upon, respond to or include in any document prepared 
     under NEPA, any comment submitted by a participating agency 
     that concerns matters that are outside of the authority and 
     expertise of the commenting participating agency.
       ``(f) Project Initiation Request.--
       ``(1) Notice.--A project sponsor shall provide the Federal 
     agency responsible for undertaking a project with notice of 
     the initiation of the project by providing a description of 
     the proposed project, the general location of the proposed 
     project, and a statement of any Federal approvals anticipated 
     to be necessary for the proposed project, for the purpose of 
     informing the Federal agency that the environmental review 
     should be initiated.
       ``(2) Lead agency initiation.--The agency receiving a 
     project initiation notice under paragraph (1) shall promptly 
     identify the lead agency for the project, and the lead agency 
     shall initiate the environmental review within a period of 45 
     days after receiving the notice required by paragraph (1) by 
     inviting or designating agencies to become participating 
     agencies, or, where the lead agency determines that no 
     participating agencies are required for the project, by 
     taking such other actions that are reasonable and necessary 
     to initiate the environmental review.
       ``(g) Alternatives Analysis.--
       ``(1) Participation.--As early as practicable during the 
     environmental review, but no later than during scoping for a 
     project requiring the preparation of an environmental impact 
     statement, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for 
     involvement by cooperating agencies in determining the range 
     of alternatives to be considered for a project.
       ``(2) Range of alternatives.--Following participation under 
     paragraph (1), the lead agency shall determine the range of 
     alternatives for consideration in any document which the lead 
     agency is responsible for preparing for the project, subject 
     to the following limitations:
       ``(A) No evaluation of certain alternatives.--No Federal 
     agency shall evaluate any alternative that was identified but 
     not carried forward for detailed evaluation in an 
     environmental document or evaluated and not selected in any 
     environmental document prepared under NEPA for the same 
     project.

[[Page H6234]]

       ``(B) Only feasible alternatives evaluated.--Where a 
     project is being constructed, managed, funded, or undertaken 
     by a project sponsor that is not a Federal agency, Federal 
     agencies shall only be required to evaluate alternatives that 
     the project sponsor could feasibly undertake, consistent with 
     the purpose of and the need for the project, including 
     alternatives that can be undertaken by the project sponsor 
     and that are technically and economically feasible.
       ``(3) Methodologies.--
       ``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall determine, in 
     collaboration with cooperating agencies at appropriate times 
     during the environmental review, the methodologies to be used 
     and the level of detail required in the analysis of each 
     alternative for a project. The lead agency shall include in 
     the environmental document a description of the methodologies 
     used and how the methodologies were selected.
       ``(B) No evaluation of inappropriate alternatives.--When a 
     lead agency determines that an alternative does not meet the 
     purpose and need for a project, that alternative is not 
     required to be evaluated in detail in an environmental 
     document.
       ``(4) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the lead 
     agency, the preferred alternative for a project, after being 
     identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than 
     other alternatives in order to facilitate the development of 
     mitigation measures or concurrent compliance with other 
     applicable laws if the lead agency determines that the 
     development of such higher level of detail will not prevent 
     the lead agency from making an impartial decision as to 
     whether to accept another alternative which is being 
     considered in the environmental review.
       ``(5) Employment analysis.--The evaluation of each 
     alternative in an environmental impact statement or an 
     environmental assessment shall identify the potential effects 
     of the alternative on employment, including potential short-
     term and long-term employment increases and reductions and 
     shifts in employment.
       ``(h) Coordination and Scheduling.--
       ``(1) Coordination plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall establish and 
     implement a plan for coordinating public and agency 
     participation in and comment on the environmental review for 
     a project or category of projects to facilitate the 
     expeditious resolution of the environmental review.
       ``(B) Schedule.--
       ``(i) In general.--The lead agency shall establish as part 
     of the coordination plan for a project, after consultation 
     with each participating agency and, where applicable, the 
     project sponsor, a schedule for completion of the 
     environmental review. The schedule shall include deadlines, 
     consistent with subsection (i), for decisions under any other 
     Federal laws (including the issuance or denial of a permit or 
     license) relating to the project that is covered by the 
     schedule.
       ``(ii) Factors for consideration.--In establishing the 
     schedule, the lead agency shall consider factors such as--

       ``(I) the responsibilities of participating agencies under 
     applicable laws;
       ``(II) resources available to the participating agencies;
       ``(III) overall size and complexity of the project;
       ``(IV) overall schedule for and cost of the project;
       ``(V) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources 
     that could be affected by the project; and
       ``(VI) the extent to which similar projects in geographic 
     proximity were recently subject to environmental review or 
     similar State procedures.

       ``(iii) Compliance with the schedule.--

       ``(I) All participating agencies shall comply with the time 
     periods established in the schedule or with any modified time 
     periods, where the lead agency modifies the schedule pursuant 
     to subparagraph (D).
       ``(II) The lead agency shall disregard and shall not 
     respond to or include in any document prepared under NEPA, 
     any comment or information submitted or any finding made by a 
     participating agency that is outside of the time period 
     established in the schedule or modification pursuant to 
     subparagraph (D) for that agency's comment, submission or 
     finding.
       ``(III) If a participating agency fails to object in 
     writing to a lead agency decision, finding or request for 
     concurrence within the time period established under law or 
     by the lead agency, the agency shall be deemed to have 
     concurred in the decision, finding or request.

       ``(C) Consistency with other time periods.--A schedule 
     under subparagraph (B) shall be consistent with any other 
     relevant time periods established under Federal law.
       ``(D) Modification.--The lead agency may--
       ``(i) lengthen a schedule established under subparagraph 
     (B) for good cause; and
       ``(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of the 
     cooperating agencies.
       ``(E) Dissemination.--A copy of a schedule under 
     subparagraph (B), and of any modifications to the schedule, 
     shall be--
       ``(i) provided within 15 days of completion or modification 
     of such schedule to all participating agencies and to the 
     project sponsor; and
       ``(ii) made available to the public.
       ``(F) Roles and responsibility of lead agency.--With 
     respect to the environmental review for any project, the lead 
     agency shall have authority and responsibility to take such 
     actions as are necessary and proper, within the authority of 
     the lead agency, to facilitate the expeditious resolution of 
     the environmental review for the project.
       ``(i) Deadlines.--The following deadlines shall apply to 
     any project subject to review under NEPA and any decision 
     under any Federal law relating to such project (including the 
     issuance or denial of a permit or license or any required 
     finding):
       ``(1) Environmental review deadlines.--The lead agency 
     shall complete the environmental review within the following 
     deadlines:
       ``(A) Environmental impact statement projects.--For 
     projects requiring preparation of an environmental impact 
     statement--
       ``(i) the lead agency shall issue an environmental impact 
     statement within 2 years after the earlier of the date the 
     lead agency receives the project initiation request or a 
     Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
     is published in the Federal Register; and
       ``(ii) in circumstances where the lead agency has prepared 
     an environmental assessment and determined that an 
     environmental impact statement will be required, the lead 
     agency shall issue the environmental impact statement within 
     2 years after the date of publication of the Notice of Intent 
     to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal 
     Register.
       ``(B) Environmental assessment projects.--For projects 
     requiring preparation of an environmental assessment, the 
     lead agency shall issue a finding of no significant impact or 
     publish a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 
     Statement in the Federal Register within 1 year after the 
     earlier of the date the lead agency receives the project 
     initiation request, makes a decision to prepare an 
     environmental assessment, or sends out participating agency 
     invitations.
       ``(2) Extensions.--
       ``(A) Requirements.--The environmental review deadlines may 
     be extended only if--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating 
     agencies; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good 
     cause.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The environmental review shall not be 
     extended by more than 1 year for a project requiring 
     preparation of an environmental impact statement or by more 
     than 180 days for a project requiring preparation of an 
     environmental assessment.
       ``(3) Environmental review comments.--
       ``(A) Comments on draft environmental impact statement.--
     For comments by agencies and the public on a draft 
     environmental impact statement, the lead agency shall 
     establish a comment period of not more than 60 days after 
     publication in the Federal Register of notice of the date of 
     public availability of such document, unless--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating 
     agencies; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good 
     cause.
       ``(B) Other comments.--For all other comment periods for 
     agency or public comments in the environmental review 
     process, the lead agency shall establish a comment period of 
     no more than 30 days from availability of the materials on 
     which comment is requested, unless--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating 
     agencies; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good 
     cause.
       ``(4) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any case in 
     which a decision under any other Federal law relating to the 
     undertaking of a project being reviewed under NEPA (including 
     the issuance or denial of a permit or license) is required to 
     be made, the following deadlines shall apply:
       ``(A) Decisions prior to record of decision or finding of 
     no significant impact.--If a Federal agency is required to 
     approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit, license, or 
     other similar application for approval related to a project 
     prior to the record of decision or finding of no significant 
     impact, such Federal agency shall approve or otherwise act 
     not later than the end of a 90-day period beginning--
       ``(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the 
     project is complete; and
       ``(ii) after the lead agency publishes a notice of the 
     availability of the final environmental impact statement or 
     issuance of other final environmental documents, or no later 
     than such other date that is otherwise required by law, 
     whichever event occurs first.
       ``(B) Other decisions.--With regard to any approval or 
     other action related to a project by a Federal agency that is 
     not subject to subparagraph (A), each Federal agency shall 
     approve or otherwise act not later than the end of a period 
     of 180 days beginning--
       ``(i) after all other relevant agency review related to the 
     project is complete; and
       ``(ii) after the lead agency issues the record of decision 
     or finding of no significant impact, unless a different 
     deadline is established by agreement of the Federal agency, 
     lead agency, and the project sponsor, where applicable, or 
     the deadline is extended by the Federal agency for good 
     cause, provided that such extension shall not extend beyond a 
     period that is 1 year after the lead agency issues the record 
     of decision or finding of no significant impact.
       ``(C) Failure to act.--In the event that any Federal agency 
     fails to approve, or otherwise to act upon, a permit, 
     license, or other similar application for approval related to 
     a project within the applicable deadline described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B), the permit, license, or other 
     similar application shall be deemed approved by such agency 
     and the agency shall take action in accordance with such 
     approval within 30 days of the applicable deadline described 
     in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(D) Final agency action.--Any approval under subparagraph 
     (C) is deemed to be final agency action, and may not be 
     reversed by any agency. In any action under chapter 7 seeking 
     review of such a final agency action, the court

[[Page H6235]]

     may not set aside such agency action by reason of that agency 
     action having occurred under this paragraph.
       ``(j) Issue Identification and Resolution.--
       ``(1) Cooperation.--The lead agency and the participating 
     agencies shall work cooperatively in accordance with this 
     section to identify and resolve issues that could delay 
     completion of the environmental review or could result in 
     denial of any approvals required for the project under 
     applicable laws.
       ``(2) Lead agency responsibilities.--The lead agency shall 
     make information available to the participating agencies as 
     early as practicable in the environmental review regarding 
     the environmental, historic, and socioeconomic resources 
     located within the project area and the general locations of 
     the alternatives under consideration. Such information may be 
     based on existing data sources, including geographic 
     information systems mapping.
       ``(3) Participating agency responsibilities.--Based on 
     information received from the lead agency, participating 
     agencies shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues 
     of concern regarding the project's potential environmental, 
     historic, or socioeconomic impacts. In this paragraph, issues 
     of concern include any issues that could substantially delay 
     or prevent an agency from granting a permit or other approval 
     that is needed for the project.
       ``(4) Issue resolution.--
       ``(A) Meeting of participating agencies.--At any time upon 
     request of a project sponsor, the lead agency shall promptly 
     convene a meeting with the relevant participating agencies 
     and the project sponsor, to resolve issues that could delay 
     completion of the environmental review or could result in 
     denial of any approvals required for the project under 
     applicable laws.
       ``(B) Notice that resolution cannot be achieved.--If a 
     resolution cannot be achieved within 30 days following such a 
     meeting and a determination by the lead agency that all 
     information necessary to resolve the issue has been obtained, 
     the lead agency shall notify the heads of all participating 
     agencies, the project sponsor, and the Council on 
     Environmental Quality for further proceedings in accordance 
     with section 204 of NEPA, and shall publish such notification 
     in the Federal Register.
       ``(k) Limitation on Use of Social Cost of Carbon.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any environmental review 
     or environmental decisionmaking process, a lead agency may 
     not use the social cost of carbon.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `social 
     cost of carbon' means the social cost of carbon as described 
     in the technical support document entitled `Technical Support 
     Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
     Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order No. 12866', 
     published by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
     Carbon, United States Government, in May 2013, revised in 
     November 2013, or any successor thereto or substantially 
     related document, or any other estimate of the monetized 
     damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon 
     dioxide emissions in a given year.
       ``(l) Report to Congress.--The head of each Federal agency 
     shall report annually to Congress--
       ``(1) the projects for which the agency initiated 
     preparation of an environmental impact statement or 
     environmental assessment;
       ``(2) the projects for which the agency issued a record of 
     decision or finding of no significant impact and the length 
     of time it took the agency to complete the environmental 
     review for each such project;
       ``(3) the filing of any lawsuits against the agency seeking 
     judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by 
     the agency for an action subject to NEPA, including the date 
     the complaint was filed, the court in which the complaint was 
     filed, and a summary of the claims for which judicial review 
     was sought; and
       ``(4) the resolution of any lawsuits against the agency 
     that sought judicial review of a permit, license, or approval 
     issued by the agency for an action subject to NEPA.
       ``(m) Limitations on Claims.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial 
     review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a Federal 
     agency for an action subject to NEPA shall be barred unless--
       ``(A) in the case of a claim pertaining to a project for 
     which an environmental review was conducted and an 
     opportunity for comment was provided, the claim is filed by a 
     party that submitted a comment during the environmental 
     review on the issue on which the party seeks judicial review, 
     and such comment was sufficiently detailed to put the lead 
     agency on notice of the issue upon which the party seeks 
     judicial review; and
       ``(B) filed within 180 days after publication of a notice 
     in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, license, 
     or approval is final pursuant to the law under which the 
     agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is specified in 
     the Federal law pursuant to which judicial review is allowed.
       ``(2) New information.--The preparation of a supplemental 
     environmental impact statement, when required, is deemed a 
     separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a 
     claim for judicial review of such action shall be 180 days 
     after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal 
     Register announcing the record of decision for such action. 
     Any claim challenging agency action on the basis of 
     information in a supplemental environmental impact statement 
     shall be limited to challenges on the basis of that 
     information.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to create a right to judicial review or 
     place any limit on filing a claim that a person has violated 
     the terms of a permit, license, or approval.
       ``(n) Categories of Projects.--The authorities granted 
     under this subchapter may be exercised for an individual 
     project or a category of projects.
       ``(o) Effective Date.--The requirements of this subchapter 
     shall apply only to environmental reviews and environmental 
     decisionmaking processes initiated after the date of 
     enactment of this subchapter. In the case of a project for 
     which an environmental review or environmental decisionmaking 
     process was initiated prior to the date of enactment of this 
     subchapter, the provisions of subsection (i) shall apply, 
     except that, notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, in determining a deadline under such subsection, any 
     applicable period of time shall be calculated as beginning 
     from the date of enactment of this subchapter.
       ``(p) Applicability.--Except as provided in subsection (p), 
     this subchapter applies, according to the provisions thereof, 
     to all projects for which a Federal agency is required to 
     undertake an environmental review or make a decision under an 
     environmental law for a project for which a Federal agency is 
     undertaking an environmental review.
       ``(q) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to supersede, amend, or modify sections 134, 135, 
     139, 325, 326, and 327 of title 23, sections 5303 and 5304 of 
     title 49, or subtitle C of title I of division A of the 
     Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the 
     amendments made by such subtitle (Public Law 112-141).''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the items relating to subchapter II the following:

    ``subchapter iia--interagency coordination regarding permitting

``560. Coordination of agency administrative operations for efficient 
              decisionmaking.''.
       (c) Regulations.--
       (1) Council on environmental quality.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this division, the 
     Council on Environmental Quality shall amend the regulations 
     contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, to implement the provisions of this division and 
     the amendments made by this division, and shall by rule 
     designate States with laws and procedures that satisfy the 
     criteria under section 560(d)(2)(A) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Federal agencies.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date that the Council on Environmental Quality amends the 
     regulations contained in part 1500 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, to implement the provisions of this 
     division and the amendments made by this division, each 
     Federal agency with regulations implementing the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
     shall amend such regulations to implement the provisions of 
     this division.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
261. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Marino

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as the 
designee of Chairman Goodlatte.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 20, strike ``Participating'' and insert 
     ``Cooperating''.
       Page 8, line 22, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 8, line 23, insert after ``agencies'' the following: 
     ``(as such term is defined in part 1500 of title 40 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 
     2011)''.
       Page 9, line 1, strike ``Participating'' and insert 
     ``Cooperating''.
       Page 9, line 4, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 9, line 24, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 10, line 6, strike ``Participating'' and insert 
     ``Cooperating''.
       Page 10, line 9, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 10, line 15, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 10, line 16, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''
       Page 10, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 
     11, line 4.
       Page 11, line 5, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 11, line 20, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 11, line 20, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 11, beginning on line 22, strike ``participating'' and 
     insert ``cooperating''.
       Page 11, line 23, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 11, line 25, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.

[[Page H6236]]

       Page 12, line 4, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 12, line 6, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 12, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 
     16.
       Page 12, strike line 17, and all that follows through 
     ``project, and the'' on line 20, and insert the following:
       ``(f) Lead Agency Initiation.--The''.
       Page 12, beginning on line 22, strike ``the notice'' and 
     all that follows through line 3 on page 13, and insert the 
     following: ``an application for a project from a project 
     sponsor.''.
       Page 16, line 9, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 16, beginning on line 22, strike ``participating'' and 
     insert ``cooperating''.
       Page 17, line 2, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 17, line 16, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 18, line 2, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 18, line 7, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 19, line 6, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 20, beginning on line 7, strike ``the project 
     initiation request'', and insert the following: ``an 
     application for a project from a project sponsor''.
       Page 21, beginning on line 4, strike ``participating'' and 
     insert ``cooperating''.
       Page 21, line 11, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 22, line 7, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 22, line 19, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 25, line 15, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 25, line 15, strike ``cooperatively''.
       Page 25, line 23, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 26, line 5, strike ``Participating'' and insert 
     ``Cooperating''.
       Page 26, line 7, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 26, line 15, strike ``Participating'' and insert 
     ``Cooperating''.
       Page 26, line 18, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 27, line 5, strike ``participating'' and insert 
     ``cooperating''.
       Page 29, line 9, strike ``a party that'' and insert ``a 
     party to the administrative proceeding, and the party''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes numerous technical and 
other minor wording changes to the bill. Together, these revisions 
clarify that the bill does not authorize duplicative agency review 
proceedings, does not require duplicative project notification and 
initiation of agency review procedures, and does not allow permitting 
decisions to be challenged in court by parties who did not first 
present their arguments in the administrative proceedings that produced 
the challenged permit.
  The amendment constitutes an agreement reached between the Judiciary 
Committee and the other committee of jurisdiction, the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  September 25, 2015, on page H6236, the following appeared: There 
was no objection. Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: There was no 
objection. The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
5 minutes. Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment has been 
categorized as a technical amendment. We are told the amendment is 
designed to clarify the bill, which is being sold as the answer to our 
Nation's economic woes.
  The bill is supposed to streamline government environmental reviews, 
and this amendment is supposed to streamline the underlying bill. 
Unfortunately, the only thing that is being streamlined here are the 
facts about NEPA.
  Mr. Chairman, the facts are not in the Republicans' favor. For more 
than 40 years, NEPA has ensured that federally funded projects are 
carried out in a transparent and cost-effective manner, while fostering 
public participation in the decisionmaking process and minimizing 
impacts to the environment.
  In fact, NEPA often provides the only forum for citizens to engage in 
major Federal actions that affect our health, well-being, and the 
environment. NEPA saves millions of dollars and is a tool for 
environmental justice. NEPA gave the confederated Salish and Kootenai 
tribal governments and citizen groups an opportunity to engage in the 
design of U.S. 93 in western Montana, resulting in a project that 
successfully addressed safety, environmental, family farming, and 
cultural concerns.

                              {time}  0915

  NEPA's success stories, where the process saves money and improves 
the quality of life for people impacted by Federal decisions, go on and 
on. My Republican colleagues tend to streamline these stories so we 
never get a chance to hear them.
  Here are some facts my Republican colleagues might have missed during 
their streamlining:
  95 percent of all NEPA analyses are completed through categorical 
exclusion, which generally requires only a few days.
  Less than 5 percent of NEPA actions require an environmental 
assessment, and less than 1 percent require a full EIS. Those projects 
that do require an EIS tend to be the largest, most complex. The delays 
that do occur are more likely the result of local opposition, a lack of 
funding, or changes in the project's scope.
  Agency data, interviews with agency officials, and available studies 
show that most NEPA analyses do not result in litigation; yet, the 
underlying bill seeks to restrict judicial review, and the manager's 
amendment would create a judicial bar to the courthouse doors before a 
party could seek judicial review.
  Typically, there have been fewer than 100 cases per year nationwide 
in the last decade even though the NEPA review process is applied to 
tens of thousands of government actions each year and tens of thousands 
more that are classified as exempt from review based on categorical 
exclusions.
  NEPA is not a barrier to development. It is a tool for better 
decision-making. The only reason to avoid NEPA or to weaken it is so 
that you can make decisions less carefully. This is the purpose of the 
legislation.
  Apparently, the bill itself was not drafted very carefully; so, we 
have a manager's amendment to fix all the errors. This manager's 
amendment is just more proof that my Republican colleagues should leave 
NEPA alone because their understanding of how it works and what it does 
is, unfortunately, too streamlined.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, line 11, insert after the period at the end the 
     following: ``No alternative may be deemed feasible if the 
     alternative does not adequately address risks associated with 
     flooding, wildfire, and climate change.''

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As my fellow Californian Ronald Reagan once said, ``There you go 
again.'' Attacks on NEPA have become almost a common, weekly occurrence 
in this Congress, and H.R. 348 is just the latest iteration.
  We should really call this bill the VAPID Act because it is tired, 
unimaginative, and a ploy to undermine one of our bedrock environmental 
laws: NEPA.
  My amendment would not fix all of this bill's problems, but it 
certainly would inject some small sense of fiscal responsibility into 
this legislation that seemingly has been designed for wasting 
taxpayers' money.
  Restricting the ability of the public to comment on proposed projects 
virtually guarantees more lawsuits and more hastily approved projects 
that

[[Page H6237]]

could turn into embarrassing boondoggles.
  Particularly in the face of climate change, we must take special care 
to ensure that the future value of projects is considered. This means 
thoroughly evaluating the risks associated with more frequent and 
intense wildfires as well as flooding caused by stronger storms and 
higher sea levels.
  Doing these reviews will not delay projects. As was pointed out by 
the ranking member, it is a fact that 95 percent of all NEPA analyses 
are completed through categorical exclusions, which generally require 
only a few days to process.
  Less than 5 percent require an environmental assessment, and less 
than 1 percent require a full environmental impact statement, or an 
EIS.
  Those projects that do require an EIS tend to be the largest and most 
complex, and delays that do occur are more likely the result of local 
opposition, a lack of funding, or changes in the project's scope, not 
due to NEPA.
  Making sure that roads aren't wiped out by a future storm surge or 
that activities in our national forests don't spark fires or that 
government-financed and -permitted actions are resilient to climate 
change is the least we can do to protect taxpayers and the environment.
  To do this, we need to keep NEPA strong, not weaken it by making 
government actions less transparent. The current NEPA process allows 
for the full consideration of the costs and the benefits of proposed 
actions and leads to environmentally and economically sound outcomes.
  I urge a ``yea'' vote on my amendment because the threats associated 
with climate change and related natural hazards are too great for this 
House to continue to ignore.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, by its terms, the amendment brands 
infeasible--and, thus, barred from further evaluation--project 
alternatives that do not appear at the outset of the review process to 
adequately address risks associated with flooding, wildfire, and 
climate change. With all due respect, that puts the cart before the 
horse.
  The bill is intended to allow the review of alternatives that are 
technically and economically feasible. It is entirely possible that, 
during the course of review, a technically and economically feasible 
alternative that appears initially to be inadequate to address these 
risks could, on further review, be found to be adequate or to be 
improved to be adequate. It might even ultimately be found to be the 
best alternative under review.
  Why should we prematurely end the evaluation of alternatives that 
could ultimately prove adequate with regard to these types of risks?
  This does not prevent the review process. What it does prevent is 
someone waiting to get in at the last moment, which has been 5 or 6 
years later, to jam the system up in court, therefore crushing jobs and 
letting regulation run rampant.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment that risks due to 
flooding, to stronger storms, to climate change are not putting the 
cart before the horse. I am simply asking that we don't waste 
taxpayers' money by not considering these risks. This is a fiscally 
sound amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 15, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(6) Low-income and communities of color analysis.--The 
     evaluation of each alternative in an environmental impact 
     statement or an environmental assessment shall identify the 
     potential effects of the alternative on low-income 
     communities and communities of color.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the National Environmental Policy Act, or 
NEPA, is a 45-year-old law which stands, basically, for two things: 
that the Federal Government should consider alternatives before taking 
action that can impact people's lives and that the public should have 
the opportunity to comment on those alternatives before a final 
decision is made.
  House Republicans oppose both of these simple principles and so they 
attack NEPA time after time, year after year. The bill before us today 
is just a rerun of those attacks.
  My amendment, unfortunately, cannot fix this bill. In fact, my 
amendment is really just proof of what is so dangerous about the RAPID 
Act. Among the critical issues that can be addressed through our 
existing NEPA process is ensuring environmental justice.
  Bills like the one we are considering today seek to short-circuit 
that process; so, they seek to short-circuit environmental justice 
concerns. My amendment would put environmental justice considerations 
back in the process created by this legislation; but we would not even 
need this amendment if Republicans would just leave NEPA alone.
  Twenty-one years ago President Bill Clinton issued his executive 
order on environmental justice. After decades of hard work, struggle, 
some victories along the way, the promise of environmental justice for 
all communities remains unfulfilled.
  While environmental toxins and pollution know no class or race, low-
income communities and communities of color bear a disproportionate 
share of adverse environmental consequences.
  Low-income communities and communities of color are routinely 
targeted to host facilities that have negative environmental impacts, 
such as landfills, refineries, chemical plants, freeways, and ports.
  Seventy-eight percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a 
coal-fired power plant. Nearly one out of every two Latinos lives in 
the country's top 25 most ozone-polluted cities.
  For decades, these communities have been battling environmental 
injustices and have been seeking to build healthy, livable, and 
sustainable communities.
  NEPA recognizes that, when the public and Federal experts work 
together, better decisions are made. We have not solved the problem 
yet, but the solution is a more inclusive, more rigorous use of the 
NEPA process, not these constant, industry-friendly attacks on the law.
  Every person has the right to live, work, and play in a healthy and 
safe environment; yet, too often, the health of too many Americans is 
determined by their race, class, ZIP code, and street address.
  It is unfortunate and inefficient to have to come down here to 
protect these issues one by one for each and every Republican bill that 
is presented.
  The adoption of my amendment would keep H.R. 348 from destroying the 
progress we have made on issues for communities of color, but it 
doesn't solve the problem.
  A far better approach would be to drop H.R. 348 and to instead invest 
in making NEPA stronger and more inclusive than ever.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H6238]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, among those who suffer most unfairly from 
poor government decision-making are the communities the gentleman's 
amendment addresses. For example, growing research shows that the costs 
of new regulations often have regressive effects on those with lower 
incomes. When poor government decision-making occurs in the permit 
review process, similar unfair effects may occur.
  The gentleman's amendment guards against this by requiring agencies 
to identify and reveal the potential adverse effects of project 
alternatives on low-income communities and communities of color. Once 
identified and revealed, of course, any such effects may be avoided, 
minimized, or mitigated.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.

                              {time}  0930


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gallego

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 21, line 12, strike ``or''.
       Page 21, line 14, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or''.
       Page 21, after line 14, insert the following:
       ``(iii) a deadline extension is requested by an elected 
     official of a State or locality, or a local tribal 
     official.''.
       Page 22, line 8, strike ``or''.
       Page 22, line 10, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or''.
       Page 22, after line 10, insert the following:
       ``(iii) a deadline extension is requested by an elected 
     official of a State or locality, or a local tribal 
     official.''.
       Page 22, line 20, strike ``or''.
       Page 22, line 22, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or''.
       Page 22, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(iii) a deadline extension is requested by an elected 
     official of a State or locality, or a local tribal 
     official.''.
       Page 24, line 12, strike ``or''.
       Page 24, line 14, insert after ``cause,'' the following: 
     ``, or the deadline was extended pursuant to the request of 
     an elected official of a State or locality, or a local tribal 
     official,''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment 
to the RAPID Act, a misguided bill that will disempower local leaders, 
including tribal leaders, and threaten the health and safety of our 
communities and their communities.
  As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, time and time again I 
have witnessed the Republican majority siding with big business and 
gutting bedrock environmental safeguards that for decades have 
protected our families and our natural heritage.
  My Republican friends claim that this bill is intended to protect the 
interest of our States and Native American tribes.
  Mr. Chair, we already have a law on the books for that purpose. It is 
called the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and it works. At 
its heart, NEPA ensures that our government is accountable to the 
people.
  This critical law has protected the environment for more than 40 
years without imposing arbitrary deadlines or limiting vital public 
input.
  It guarantees the public an opportunity to review and comment on 
actions proposed by the government, enabling important perspectives 
that would otherwise go unnoticed. In this way, NEPA can actually serve 
as a check on Big Government.
  Unfortunately, the RAPID Act promises the opposite, a deeply flawed 
process that would diminish the voice of State, local, and tribal 
communities.
  The RAPID Act will also establish a new regulatory framework that 
purposely overrides the NEPA review process, limiting public input and 
consequently undermining the quality and integrity of Federal agency 
decisions.
  Among its many dangerous provisions, the bill will also trigger the 
automatic approval of construction projects if agencies miss arbitrary 
deadlines, regardless of the complexity or hazard posed by such 
potential projects.
  Though the bill includes some extremely limited and narrow exceptions 
for these deadlines, as it is currently written, it fails to extend 
those deadlines for our local communities.
  My amendment would simply create a new good cause exception that 
would allow a deadline to be extended if a request is made from a 
local- or State-elected official or a local tribal leader.
  While my amendment does not fix all the problems in the underlying 
bill, it ensures that, if this bill should pass, our local and tribal 
leaders will continue to be empowered, as they are currently under 
NEPA.
  I support the goal of reducing red tape, but stripping away the 
ability of our local communities to have their voices heard is 
undemocratic and unacceptable. Mr. Chair, special interests don't need 
us to fight for them. Our communities do.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to stand with our 
local and tribal leaders when it comes to projects in their own back 
yards that impact their homes, families, and business.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow agencies to 
escape the bill's streamlined permitting deadlines simply because an 
elected State or local official or a local tribal official asks for an 
extension.
  The amendment contains no requirement that a Federal agency find the 
compelling basis for an extension or even a significant basis or even 
any substantive basis at all.
  On the contrary, all that a recalcitrant Federal agency, a project 
opponent, or anyone else would need to defeat an efficient permitting 
decision is to find an elected State or local official or a local 
tribal official willing to put in an extension request for them.
  The potential for abuse of this proposed provision by those who only 
seek delay for delay's sake or who seek to kill worthy projects 
outright is obvious.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 
     25, line 12.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will find common ground 
on really responding to a great concern that I think all Americans 
should be concerned about.
  Although this bill is called the RAPID Act, were it to become law, in 
the present form, a permit or license for a project would be deemed 
approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the requested permit or 
license within 90 to 120 days. That is a short period of

[[Page H6239]]

time for complex regulatory structures that deal with complex 
industries.
  An industry that I represent in Houston, Texas, the energy industry, 
has complex needs and, as well, complex impacts and consequences if we 
do not deal with the agencies responsible, if the DOE, for example, 
does not do its due diligence.
  Now, let me say this, Mr. Chairman. These particular permits are done 
sooner than 90 to 120 days. But what this bill says is, if the agency 
is engaged in a very complex deliberative thought process, then, if 
they reach that deadline and they still have not finished, they are 
then, if you will, throwing to the side all of the safety issues and 
issues dealing with the protection of the American people under the 
bus.
  My amendment strikes the provision, deeming approved any project for 
which an agency does not meet the deadlines contained in the bill.
  I can appreciate some of the frustrations through the review process 
by the National Environmental Policy Act, but the cure is not this 
bill.
  If a Federal agency has failed to approve or disapprove a project or 
make the required finding, we are in trouble. Babies are in trouble 
with formula. Senior citizens are in trouble with various 
pharmaceuticals. They are in trouble. And then, if we run up against 
the deadline, there is no response.
  Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the 
complexity of the issues, as I said, warrant us to do so. In other 
words, what this bill is saying is: To heck with reason and good 
judgment. We do not care. To heck with protecting the American people. 
We do not care.
  As I listened intently and intensely to the Pope's words yesterday, I 
offer this quote: Moses provided us with a good synthesis of your work. 
You are asked to protect--and speaking to us--by means of the law, the 
image, and likeness fashioned by God on every human face.
  This bill smacks in the face of that instruction. I believe that this 
amendment is worthy of passing.
  Mr. Chair, if H.R. 348, the so-called RAPID Act, were to become law 
in its present form, a permit or license for project would be 
``deemed'' approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the 
requested permit or license within 90-120 days.
  My amendment strikes the provision deeming approved any project for 
which agency does not meet deadlines contained in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate some of the frustrations expressed by 
many of our friends across the aisle when it comes to review process 
mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
  But the cure they propose in H.R. 348 is an example of a medicine 
that is worse than the disease.
  Under H.R. 348, if a federal agency fails to approve or disapprove 
the project or make the required finding of the termination within the 
applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 120 days, depending on 
the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved by 
such agency.
  This creates a set of unintended consequences.
  First, as an agency is up against that deadline and legitimate work 
is yet to be completed, it is likely to disapprove the project simply 
because the issues have not been vetted.
  Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the 
complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer 
review period, rather than an arbitrary limit.
  So if H.R. 348 were to become law the most likely outcome is that 
federal agencies would be required to make decisions based on 
incomplete information, or information that may not be available within 
the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would 
have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.
  In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 348 ostensibly seeks to make a minor procedure 
adjustment to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
  In reality, however, H.R. 348 would radically transform the NEPA 
review process, and not for the better either.
  For more than 40 years, NEPA has been the law of the land and has 
provided a remarkably effective framework for all types of projects 
(not just construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant 
to a federal law, such as the Clean Air Act.
  For these reasons, I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee 
Amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the American people desperately need new 
jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, America's labor 
force participation rate remains mired among historic lows.
  Almost 94 million Americans who could work are outside the workforce. 
That is more than the population of all but 12 of the world's countries 
and more than every other country in the Western Hemisphere, except for 
Brazil and Mexico.
  We face this historically low rate not because Americans don't want 
to work, but because so many Americans have despaired of any hope of 
finding a new full-time job and have abandoned the workforce.
  The RAPID Act offers strong help to reverse this tragedy, restore the 
hope, and produce millions of new jobs. We must pass the bill, not 
weaken it, to provide these new high-wage jobs.
  The gentlewoman's amendment would weaken the bill in one of the worst 
possible ways. It would remove the clear consequences in the bill for 
agencies that refuse to follow the bill's deadlines. That consequence 
is to deem permits approved if agencies refuse to approve or deny them 
within those deadlines.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill provides 4\1/2\ years for agencies to complete 
their environmental reviews for new permit applications and reasonable 
and additional time for agencies to wrap up final permit approvals or 
denials after that; 4\1/2\ years is more time than it took the United 
States to fight and win World War II.
  If agencies can't wrap up their environmental reviews in that much 
time and then meet the bill's remaining deadlines, there is something 
terribly wrong with the agencies.
  The prospect of facing a default approval at the end of the 
substantial time the bill grants is an eminently reasonable way to 
assure that agencies will conduct full reviews and wrap their work up 
in time to make up or down decisions on their own.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am so glad my colleague mentioned 
the question of jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am very glad my colleague mentioned 
jobs because none of us here are fighting against jobs.
  In fact, I happen to be supporting the full employment legislation 
that my good friend, Congressman John Conyers, has offered and I have 
joined.
  We are not here speaking against jobs. We are speaking for the 
American people.
  We are trying to explain the complexity of the permitting process. 
Whether it is for drilling, whether it is to deal with construction, 
whether it is to deal with complex environmental issues that have to be 
addressed impacting the American people or, for example, whether it is 
dealing with the Volkswagen company that saw fit to do the technology 
to undermine viable rules that the American automobile industry was 
complying with, definitely impacting jobs, I would have hoped that we 
would have had a process of permitting or a process of determining 
whether the Volkswagen company was violating these rules that were here 
to help the issue of pollution and other issues here, but also 
undermining the jobs of our own American companies.
  Let me say that the Jackson Lee amendment, in essence, is to suggest 
that there is a lot of complexity that my friends on the other side of 
the aisle with the RAPID Act--the very name of it suggests that we are 
throwing judgment to the wind.
  All we want to do is to move forward, even if they are ill. And we 
don't want the taxpayer dollars that have asked these workers in these 
agencies who have the expertise from the DOE, to the FDA and beyond--
Food and Drug Administration, Department of Energy--to protect us.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment, by eliminating the 90 to 
120, deeming it approved in the midst

[[Page H6240]]

of a crisis when it is not fit to be approved, is an amendment that 
this body should pass.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment because I am 
here to protect the American people and to do justly, as has been given 
to us in a wonderful message yesterday by Pope Francis.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I want to just give a couple of examples of 
the timing factor that we are seeing that the agencies just are not 
executing properly.
  Cape Wind Project: For more than 12 years--12 years--they were 
waiting for permits to build an operation that would create jobs and 
renewable energy. 12 years.
  Orange County toll road in Orange County, California: There was a 12-
year delay there as well. The project was extended tens of millions of 
dollars because of the delay there, and jobs were lost because of that.
  Charleston Harbor, Savannah Port dredging project: Again, there was a 
decade of delays in permitting because agencies are just sitting 
around, not taking the job responsibly. They never would survive in 
private industry if they operated under those conditions.
  So those are a few examples of the cost in dollars and cents and the 
jobs that are lost because of these agencies not performing their 
responsibilities.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.

                              {time}  0945


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Dingell

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 25, line 4, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, unless the project would limit access to or 
     opportunities for hunting or fishing, or impact a species 
     listed as an endangered species or threatened species under 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA as we frequently 
shorthand it, is one of our bedrock conservation laws, and it has a 
simple premise: look before you leap. Its timelines are designed to 
provide transparency and public participation in government. H.R. 348 
would move us in the opposite direction.
  My amendment would not fix all of the problems with this bill, but it 
would allow hunters, anglers, and wildlife enthusiasts to continue to 
enjoy the benefits that NEPA provides.
  Several recent stories help explain the benefits of NEPA, including 
the following:
  Recently, a plan to improve U.S. 23 in my home State of Michigan was 
modified to avoid the largest loss of wetlands in our State's history. 
Not only will this help improve the biodiversity of the region, but it 
will also preserve that habitat for migratory waterfowl prized by 
hunters. This land could have been lost and hunters would have had 
their access reduced if not for the robust comment process that NEPA 
provides.
  There are similar stories across the country. In 2013, changes to the 
Army Corps of Engineers' plan to increase storage capacity at the John 
Redmond Reservoir in Kansas were needed to protect prime deer and 
turkey hunting areas, as well as avoid the destruction of a local boat 
ramp providing fishermen access to the lake.
  In 2004, sportsmen's groups from across the country banded together 
during the NEPA review process and caused BLM to withdraw a proposal to 
allow oil and gas drilling along the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana.
  The list goes on and on, but the point is that none of these positive 
outcomes would have been achieved without a strong NEPA process that 
encourages public participation instead of limiting it.
  Furthermore, the habitats utilized by game and sports fishermen are 
the same as those utilized by endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. 
Destroying one destroys the other, which is why NEPA must allow for a 
thorough review of potential impacts to listed species.
  My amendment would ensure these protections will be preserved so 
hunters, fishermen, and American wildlife will continue to benefit from 
them. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to limit public 
oversight of taxpayer-funded projects.
  NEPA shines a light on proposed government actions and helps local 
citizens provide new information and ideas, improve projects, and 
ensure sustainable decisionmaking. It helps Federal authorities 
consider a range of alternatives, often resulting in lower costs to the 
public, something I am sure everyone here supports.
  NEPA is a quintessentially American, quintessentially small-
government law. It reinforces the rights of people to hold their 
government accountable. A host of environmental groups have endorsed my 
amendment, but I am particularly pleased to have the support of Trout 
Unlimited, because my amendment would help protect the rights of 
anglers. If you hunt, you fish or have constituents who do, you should 
support a strong NEPA and vote for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, one of the linchpins of the RAPID Act is 
its set of provisions that: deem a permit approved if the permitting 
agency refuses to meet the bill's reasonable deadlines; and, prohibit a 
court from overturning a permit approval simply because the permit was 
deemed approved when deadlines expired before action was taken.
  If we do not include consequences like these in the bill, how will we 
ever ensure that recalcitrant, foot-dragging Federal agencies will 
achieve the bill's goal of streamlined permit decisions?
  The amendment, however, removes all consequences for agencies' foot-
dragging so long as the projects at issue would either limit access to 
or opportunities for hunting or fishing or impact an endangered or 
threatened species. That is in the bill. The amendment's sponsor offers 
no sound reason to do this.
  The bill does not require projects with these kinds of impacts to be 
approved. It just requires that permitting decisions, up or down, be 
reached after, at most, 4\1/2\ years of environmental review. Surely 
that is enough time to review all kinds of projects, including those 
that limit access to or opportunities for hunting or fishing or impact 
endangered or threatened species.
  To make matters worse, the bill would allow agencies to drag their 
feet without consequences even if a project had a beneficial impact on 
an endangered or threatened species. Why should we allow delay for 
that?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly respond to the comments 
made by my colleague on the other side of the aisle.
  We often hear that NEPA is a scapegoat for projects being delayed, 
but as the GAO and others have found, outside issues, including the 
complexity of the project, local opposition and, most importantly, 
funding issues are almost always the cause of delays.
  If we adequately funded highway and infrastructure projects, we 
wouldn't be seeing so many delays the majority is

[[Page H6241]]

so concerned with. NEPA is a convenient excuse, but the facts simply 
don't support the claim that it is the root cause of projects being 
delayed.
  We should not be limiting the public's ability to comment on 
government decisions; but, instead, we should be enhancing them. This 
bill does the opposite. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment 
and oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, my colleague forgets to mention the fact 
that the lead Federal agency in this is responsible for maintaining a 
schedule, just like we do in private industry, just like we do in our 
own homes. That agency is responsible for going to the States and to 
the locals and other Federal agencies to make sure things are being 
done. Unfortunately, here in D.C., and sometimes at the State level, 
the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and this is 
making agencies responsible for that. It is just common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Peters

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 27, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 
     28, line 4, and redesignate provisions accordingly.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I entered public service, I practiced 
environmental law for 15 years in large firms, in a government office, 
and in my own firm. Through that experience, I learned firsthand of the 
frustration that many businesses and local governments face when they 
try to navigate overly complex and underly responsive permit processes.
  I also know from experience that time is money, and often a business 
seeking a permit is paying dearly to hold a property or to service a 
loan while it waits for that permit to be issued. That is why I have 
often said that for applicants, ``no'' is the second best answer. Tell 
us ``no'' or tell us how, but don't string us along.
  That is why I appreciate the spirit of the RAPID Act. I don't think 
it is the perfect answer. Frankly, I don't think it will become law. I 
am working on some other streamlining strategies that I think are 
superior and might have the bipartisan support that both would get them 
through this Chamber and the Senate and get them signed into law by 
President Obama.
  As I told my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, I will 
vote for the RAPID Act if Congress adopts my amendment and does not 
pass restrictions on considering the role of greenhouse gasses and 
climate change on our environment.
  My amendment would simply eliminate subsection (k) of the bill, a 
section that explicitly prohibits any consideration of the social cost 
of carbon. For too long we have heard that we have to choose between a 
prosperous economy and a clean environment. San Diegans and people 
around the country know that is a false choice.
  We can and we must provide economic opportunity and clean air and 
clean water for future generations. That means providing businesses and 
communities with regulatory certainty to help them plan and invest in 
the future, and it also means that we use this streamlined process, 
with tight and reliable deadlines, to analyze the economic, 
environmental, and social costs of carbon dioxide emissions.
  As highlighted in former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's bipartisan 
Risky Business report, accounting for the social cost of carbon and 
preparing for climate change is just smart business practice. The costs 
of carbon include financial losses from sea level rise. If we continue 
on our current path of carbon emissions, by 2050, between 66 and 106 
billion dollars worth of existing coastal property will likely be below 
sea level nationwide. Eighty-seven percent of all Californians live in 
coastal counties, and 80 percent of the State's GDP is derived from 
those counties.
  Climate affects energy supply costs. Greenhouse gas-driven changes in 
temperature, catalyzed by burning fossil fuels, would require us to 
build new power generation facilities to help cool homes and businesses 
that Risky Business estimates will cost residential and commercial 
ratepayers as much as $12 billion a year.
  That is $12 billion that could be used by families to put their kids 
through school or buy a home, or by businesses to hire more employees.
  Climate affects the cost of national defense. In 2014, the Pentagon 
issued a report on the security risks associated with profound changes 
to global climate and the environment. The report found that climate 
change poses an immediate threat to national security. That will put 
additional upward pressure on our already-stressed defense budget.
  Climate affects agriculture, water supply, fire preparedness. In 
California, the largest agriculture producing State in the country, we 
are in the fourth year of what has been one of the worst droughts in 
recorded history. Communities across the State are facing water 
shortages. Dry conditions have extended our fire season to be nearly a 
year-round concern.
  Given the stakes associated with carbon emissions on coastal 
property, energy, defense, our food supply, fires, and our quality of 
life, shouldn't we at least understand the long-term costs associated 
with the project?
  This bill could hold the line on responsiveness and provide long-term 
certainty to businesses without burying our collective heads in the 
sand on the costs of carbon, one of the main environmental impacts this 
environmental law must confront. By stripping out subsection (k) and 
allowing us to consider the real costs of carbon on our economy, my 
amendment rejects the false choice between a prosperous economy and a 
healthy climate. We can and we must have both.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to strike the bill's 
prohibition against agency use in permitting reviews of the Obama 
administration's pronouncements on the social costs of carbon, but this 
prohibition was adopted last term for a very good reason.
  The administration's social cost of carbon estimate is junk science. 
To be specific, multiple commentators on the administration's findings 
about the social cost of carbon argue that carbon's social cost is an 
unknown quantity, that social cost of carbon analysts can get just 
about any result they desire by fiddling with nonvalidated climate 
parameters, made-up damage functions, and below-market discount rates, 
and that social cost of carbon analysis is computer-aided sophistry, 
its political function being to make renewable energy look like a 
bargain at any price and fossil energy look unaffordable, no matter how 
cheap.
  Junk science and sophistry has no place standing between hard-working 
Americans and new, high-paying jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds remaining.

[[Page H6242]]

  

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I have two responses. One, this is not 
President Obama's agenda. This is the agenda of a bipartisan report, 
Risky Business, the Department of Defense, and a number of other people 
who have recognized this is a real problem we have to confront.
  Second, I would say to the gentleman: Let the science work itself out 
through the process. There is plenty of science that is questioned in 
the NEPA process. There is no other point at which this body has 
prevented a discussion of any content except here.
  Let the process work it out. I will be with you on your timelines. We 
will get businesses the certainty that they deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. MARINO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania and fellow member of the Judiciary Committee for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The social cost of carbon is a 
flawed concept that should play no role in the environmental 
decisionmaking process.
  It is based on speculative formulas and has no basis in reality. 
Formulas can easily be manipulated to support any costly regulation.
  The social cost of carbon is a political tool the Obama 
administration uses to impose its extreme agenda on the American 
people.
  It is also another way that the administration tries to use secret 
science and data to justify questionable rulemaking. Speculating on the 
social cost of carbon should be restricted, not expanded.
  For these reasons, an agency should not use the social cost of carbon 
in its environmental review or in its environmental decisionmaking 
process.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Peters).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 28, line 1, insert after ``substantially related 
     document,'' the following: ``the draft guidance entitled: 
     `Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies 
     on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects 
     of Climate change in NEPA Reviews' (79 Fed. Reg. 77801), or 
     any successor thereto or substantially related document,''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense 
amendment that will protect American jobs and our economy by 
prohibiting Federal agencies from being forced to follow job-killing 
and unlawful draft guidance that sneakily seeks to implement Federal 
policies that pave the way for cap-and-trade-like mandates.
  Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and-
trade proposals pushed by this President and his Big Government allies.
  Knowing he can't lawfully enact a carbon dioxide tax plan, President 
Obama has chosen to circumvent Congress and is now seeking to address 
climate change by playing loose and getting creative with the Clean Air 
Act as well as through an unlawful guidance issued in December 2014.
  The underlying bill already prohibits Federal agencies from utilizing 
the social cost of carbon valuation. Furthermore, the social cost of 
carbon valuation was rejected four times by this very body last 
Congress.
  My simple, clarifying amendment adds to the Obama administration's 
revised draft guidance for greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of 
climate change that were issued by the White House in December 2014 to 
the definition for social cost of carbon in the bill.
  This straightforward amendment is common sense, as this deeply flawed 
guidance instructs agencies to include a controversial measurement of 
the social cost of carbon into their analyses and is the Obama 
administration's latest tool for attempting to implement this terrible 
new model that has consistently been rejected by the House.
  Roger Martella, a self-described lifelong environmentalist and career 
environmental lawyer, testified at the May 2015 House Natural Resources 
Committee hearing on the revised guidance and the flaws associated with 
the social cost of carbon model, stating:
  The `` `social cost of carbon' estimates suffer from a number of 
significant flaws that should exclude them from the NEPA process.
  ``First, projected costs of carbon emissions can be manipulated by 
changing key parameters such as timeframes, discount rates, and other 
values that have no relation to a given project undergoing review. As a 
result, applying social cost of carbon estimates can be used to promote 
pre-determined policy preferences rather than provide for a fair and 
objective evaluation of a specific proposed federal action.
  ``Second, OMB and the other federal agencies developed the draft 
Social Cost of Carbon estimates without any known peer review or 
opportunity for public comment during the development process. This 
process is antithetical to NEPA's central premise that informed agency 
decision making must be based on transparency and open dialogue with 
the public.
  ``Third, OMB's draft Social Cost of Carbon estimates are based 
primarily on global rather than domestic costs and benefits. This is 
particularly problematic for NEPA reviews because the Courts have 
established that agencies cannot consider transnational impacts in NEPA 
reviews.
  ``Fourth, there is still considerable uncertainty in many of the 
assumptions and data elements used to create the draft Social Cost of 
Carbon estimates, such as the damage functions and modeled time 
horizons. In light of the lack of transparency in the OMB's process, 
these concerns over accuracy are particularly problematic.''
  Mr. Martella's testimony was spot on. Congress, not Washington 
bureaucrats at the behest of the President, should dictate our 
country's climate change policy.
  These sweeping new changes that are seeking to be implemented by the 
White House did not go through the normal regulatory process, and there 
was no public comment.
  Furthermore, the Obama administration has refused to answer pivotal 
questions about this guidance and even failed to send a witness to a 
May 2015 hearing on this matter.
  While the Obama administration acknowledged the draft guidance is not 
legally enforceable, you best believe that Federal agencies that 
received the 31-page revised guidance will treat this document like it 
was signed into law by the President.
  Unfortunately, this administration just doesn't get it and continues 
to try to circumvent Congress to impose an extremist agenda that is not 
based on the best available science.
  Worse yet, the model utilized to predict the social cost of carbon 
can easily be manipulated to arrive at any desired outcome.
  The House has rejected the social cost of carbon numerous times. I 
ask all those to join me once again in rejecting this flawed proposal 
and protecting jobs right here in America.
  I commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts on this 
legislation and for recognizing that the NEPA process is in desperate 
need of reform.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gosar 
amendment

[[Page H6243]]

because it would weaken a critical part of the National Environmental 
Policy Act.
  The Council on Environmental Quality recently issued draft guidance 
under NEPA detailing how Federal agencies should consider the effects 
of greenhouse gas emissions.
  This NEPA guidance is a commonsense and perfectly legal step toward 
reducing the Federal Government's contribution and vulnerability to 
global warming. It is smart planning that accounts for risk and will 
save taxpayers money, something I am sure that everyone here can 
support.
  Furthermore, the guidance will only increase NEPA's effectiveness as 
a tool for environmental justice, helping communities that cannot 
afford expensive lobbyists to protect their homes and values. 
Climate change is hitting low-income communities and communities of 
color the hardest.

  Instead of blocking progress, we should congratulate President Obama 
and CEQ on issuing this incredibly important and long overdue draft 
guidance to Federal agencies and urge them to issue a final version as 
soon as possible.
  And, for the record, my understanding is CEQ did have a witness at 
the hearing that was just referred to.
  This guidance makes clear that Federal agencies must factor 
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change into their decisions and 
will produce better, more informed and more efficient outcomes.
  Efforts to convince the American people we have nothing to do with 
climate change--or, as Pope Francis said in words the American people 
understood yesterday: air pollution--will not slow the pace of actual 
climate change, and it will harm our economy, public health, and 
national security. That is why this is a bad amendment.
  We urge you to vote against it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time, 
and that is something that we can all agree on.
  MIT researchers recently reported that there was a massive extinction 
some 252 million years ago that coincided with a massive buildup of 
carbon dioxide. While the cause of the massive buildup is unknown, it 
is safe to say that man did not exist and he still can't explain it.
  You can take all the carbon-producing applications, whether it be 
oil, coal, or volcanic action, and they still can't get the models to 
predict. So we are leading the blind with the blind.
  I ask for all Members to vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DINGELL. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read an excerpt from Pope Francis' 
address to us yesterday that really stood out to me: ``I call for a 
courageous and responsible effort to redirect our steps, and to avert 
the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by 
human activity. I am convinced that we can make a difference, and I 
have no doubt that the United States--and this Congress--have an 
important role to play.''
  I take that call by our Pope very seriously. There are even reports 
today that China is going to announce a cap-and-trade program.
  By considering this bill and this amendment, Congress is not playing 
a constructive role.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Gosar amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.
  It is bad enough that agencies already take too much time to conclude 
construction permit reviews.
  It is even worse for them to draw out the process on the basis of 
junk science.
  And that is precisely what the Obama administration's pronouncements 
on the ``social sost of carbon'' appear to be.
  The Obama administration's current ``social cost of carbon'' estimate 
is plagued by defects including the lack of full scientific peer 
review, robust public comment, and full compliance with federal 
requirements for influential scientific assessments.
  Subsection (K) of the bill prohibits the use of the administration's 
``technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact 
analysis under Executive Order No. 12866,'' as well as successors to 
it.
  The gentleman's amendment makes crystal clear that agencies also may 
not rely on administration ``guidance'' documents intended to 
facilitate agencies' use of the prohibited technical document.
  I urge my colleagues to suport the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 31, beginning on line 4, strike ``subsection (p)'' and 
     insert ``subsections (q) and (r)''.
       Page 31, line 17, insert after ``141).'' the following:
       ``(r) Exception for Certain Projects.--This subchapter does 
     not apply in the case of any project that could be a 
     potential target for a terrorist attack or that involves 
     chemical facilities and other critical infrastructure.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, although we have been debating for a 
long period of time, let me say to my colleagues to remind them--and I 
see my good friend, Chairman Goodlatte, on the floor--that this 
legislation amends the National Environmental Policy Act with good 
intentions.
  However, what this bill will do is actually strip out critical input 
from Federal, State, local agencies, and the public, jeopardizing both 
the environment and public safety--let me repeat that--jeopardizing the 
American people, environment, and public safety.
  The bill sets new, tight deadlines for environmental review, 
permitting, and licensing decisions and simply, as I said earlier, 
throws wisdom and good judgment to the wind.
  I serve as a senior member on the Homeland Security Committee. And so 
I rise today with my amendment that improves the bill and helps to 
protect the homeland by carving a limiting exception for construction 
projects that could be potential targets for terrorist acts, such as 
chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, and other critical 
infrastructure.
  Let me offer the comments of the Congressional Budget Office. They 
have no basis for estimating the number of construction projects that 
could be expedited or the savings that would be realized in this bill.
  Of course, those who support it use that as their main Rock of 
Gibraltar, if you will, their main point of argument that this is a 
good bill. A good bill in the face of terrorism?
  Director Comey has indicated that he has determined that there are 
ongoing investigations of suspected terrorist cells operating in all 50 
States. Yet, we want to expedite this process when it is determining 
issues dealing with our national security to a certain extent.
  This issue deals with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which 
the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit said shall account 
for the potential environmental impacts of acts of terrorism in its 
environmental review process.

                              {time}  1015

  Are you going to rush them along?
  The NRC has also imposed stringent antiterrorism requirements on its 
licenses through 10 CFR section 73, which outlines security 
requirements for the physical protection of nuclear plants and 
materials.
  The Jackson Lee amendment covers nuclear power plants and, as well, 
chemical facilities to not rush the process to protect the American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6244]]

  

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
This amendment denies the benefit of the bill's permit streamlining 
provisions to any and all projects that could be terrorist targets or 
involve chemical facilities or other critical infrastructure. That 
includes projects that would help to protect those infrastructures and 
facilities from terrorist attacks or other adversities.
  Why would we want to delay permitting decisions on projects that 
would help to protect us?
  The bill, moreover, already provides up to 4\1/2\ years for agencies 
to complete their environmental reviews for new permit applications and 
reasonable additional time for agencies to wrap up final permit 
approvals or denials after that.
  As I have said before, if agencies can't wrap up their environmental 
reviews in that much time and then meet the bill's remaining deadlines, 
there is something terribly wrong with those agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, new projects, whether they be infrastructure projects 
that make a dam stronger or make a highway safer or make a nuclear 
facility less vulnerable to attack, are all important things to do, and 
we should do them with expedition, not take longer rather than shorter 
to get them done, because all the time that we are spinning our wheels 
with the permitting process that can take 20 years or more, we are more 
vulnerable during that time.
  Almost all new infrastructure projects are better than what they are 
replacing, and that should be our guiding principle. Get these things 
done expeditiously. It will make us safer. It will make us a better 
economy. It will create more jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Virginia has 3 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, quite the contrary to my good friend from Virginia, 
what this amendment does is protects the process of the NRC to fully 
review the potential impacts of terrorism on Federal construction 
projects involving nuclear facilities and chemical facilities as well.
  In addition, I think when we hear the names Chernobyl, Fukushima, and 
Three Mile Island, we understand the vast and devastating impact of 
such an incident that may be caused or driven by terrorism.
  I would not want to limit the NRC, which has been given court 
authority by law to investigate and provide an investigation, thorough 
investigation, on the impact on chemical and nuclear plants, and we 
have it restricted. It takes more than 4 years to build a nuclear 
facility.
  So are you suggesting that the facility, then, can go on and be built 
for 10, 20 years, and we shut off the NEPA that has the 
responsibilities for the American people? I don't think that is 
appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that the American people from the Alaska 
Wilderness League, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the 
Western Environmental Law Center are against this bill.
  I will place this into the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, the Executive Office of the President, Council on 
Environmental Quality is opposed to this bill, and I will insert this 
into the Record.
  I just want to mention that, of course, the President has issued a 
veto threat. Where this bill is going, I do not know. But the main 
thing I would like to say to my colleagues is: Can't we stand together 
united around the question of national security?
  My amendment specifically indicates that this issue of terrorism 
should be a simple carve-out, and I would ask you to do so.
  Let me also bring in the comments of the Pope as indicated yesterday:

       If politics must truly be at the service of the human 
     person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy 
     and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our 
     compelling need to live as one in order to build, as one, the 
     greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices 
     particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, 
     its goods, its interests, and its social life.

  The interest of the American people is to accept the Jackson Lee 
amendment--to carve out an exception in this bill that is opposed by 
the President and all other aspects of goodwill people here dealing 
with the environment--to deal with this issue.
  Might I remind you, Mr. Chairman, of the Volkswagen scandal. If a 
more robust process had been in mind, 11 million owners of 
Volkswagens--and 400,000 in the United States--might be in a better 
place.
  This is a good amendment dealing with the safety and security of the 
American people. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk; it is 
listed in the Rule as Jackson Lee 9.
  Many of us wear a number of hats with dual committee assignments; I 
am a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Ranking 
Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 
Security, and Investigations.
  This perspective and these responsibilities have given me a special 
appreciation for the difficult and challenging times we live in and the 
importance of not taking precipitous actions that could put the 
security of our homeland at risk.
  Mr. Chair, if H.R. 348, the so-called RAPID Act, were to become law 
in its present form, a permit or license for project would be 
``deemed'' approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the 
requested permit or license within 90-120 days.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment improves the bill and helps to protect the 
homeland by carving a limited exception for construction projects that 
could be potential targets for terrorist attacks such as chemical 
facilities, nuclear power plants, and other critical infrastructure.
  In particular, I think it is important to note that the FBI Director 
Comey recently indicated that there are ongoing investigations of 
suspected terrorist cells operating in all of the 50 states.
  All federal agencies are subject to the environmental decision making 
requirements under NEPA.
  This includes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which the 
Circuit of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held ``shall account for 
the potential environmental impacts of acts of terrorism in its 
environmental review process.''
  The NRC has also imposed stringent anti-terrorism requirements on its 
licenses pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73, which outlines security 
requirements for the physical protection of nuclear plants and 
materials.
  A nuclear power plant is, a chemical facility covered by the Jackson 
Lee Amendment.
  Mr. Chair, we should not limit the ability of the NRC to fully review 
the potential impacts of terrorism on Federal construction projects 
involving nuclear facilities and chemical facilities, as would be the 
case were H.R. 348 to become law.
  Worse still, H.R. 348 would automatically deem construction projects 
approved even where the NRC needs more time to complete its review of 
the environmental risk and/or the potential vulnerability of a critical 
infrastructure facility to terrorist attack.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment ensures the rushed and dangerous approach 
to the NEPA approval process embodied in H.R. 348 does not adversely 
impact the security of the homeland from the risk of terrorist attacks 
on nuclear facilities or other critical infrastructure construction 
projects.
  In short, the Jackson Lee Amendment provided added protection to keep 
Americans safe.
  I urge support for the Jackson Lee Amendment.
                                               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

[[Page H6245]]

     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.
         Alaska Wilderness League, American Rivers, Center for 
           Biological Diversity, Citizens for Global Solution, 
           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, 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.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President Council on 
           Environmental Quality,
                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2015.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman,
     House Committee on the Judiciary.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Member,
     House Committee on the Judiciary.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: I am 
     writing to you to provide the Council on Environmental 
     Quality's (CEQ) views on H.R. 348, the ``Responsibly and 
     Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015.'' 
     Although the bill purports to streamline environmental 
     reviews, we believe the legislation is deeply flawed and will 
     undermine the environmental review process. If enacted, these 
     changes could lead to more confusion and delay, interfere 
     with public participation and transparency, and hamper 
     economic growth.
       The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed 
     into law by President Richard Nixon after passing Congress 
     with overwhelming bipartisan support. NEPA ushered in a new 
     era of citizen participation in government, and it required 
     the government to elevate the consideration of the 
     environmental effects of its proposed actions. It remains one 
     of the cornerstones of our Nation's modern environmental 
     protections.
       NEPA is as relevant and critical today as it was in 1970. 
     NEPA focuses and informs decision makers, policy makers, and 
     the public on alternatives and the tradeoffs involved in 
     making decisions. Today, we take for granted that 
     governmental decision making should be open and transparent, 
     that government actions should be carefully thought out and 
     their consequences explained, and that government should be 
     accountable. Prior to the enactment of NEPA, this was not 
     always the case. H.R. 348 would undo more than four decades 
     of transparent, open, and accountable government decision 
     making.
       The Administration believes that America's economic health 
     and prosperity are tied to the productive and sustainable use 
     of our environment, and the President has stressed these 
     principles since his first day in office. NEPA remains a 
     vital tool for the Nation as we work to protect our 
     environment and public health and continue to grow our 
     economy.
       The President also takes seriously the need for efficient 
     permitting and decision making by Federal agencies. American 
     taxpayers, communities and businesses deserve nothing less. 
     However, we reject the notion that NEPA and other Federal 
     environmental laws and regulations hinder job creation.
       For example, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has 
     found that 96.5 percent of federally funded highway projects 
     are approved under the least intensive, shortest and quickest 
     layer of NEPA analysis, namely categorical exclusions (CEs). 
     CEs can take as little as a few days to a few months to 
     complete, not years, and are usually done concurrently with 
     other aspects of the project review process so that the 
     entire review process is completed quickly. Only 0.3 percent 
     of FHWA projects require a full environmental impact 
     statement (EIS), the most detailed study under NEPA. When 
     there are project delays, they are typically caused by 
     incomplete funding packages, project complexity, changes in 
     project scope, local opposition, and low local priority, or 
     compliance with other laws and requirements facilitated by 
     the NEPA process, but rarely NEPA itself. An investigation by 
     the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the NEPA process 
     in federally funded highway projects bore this same point 
     out.
       Within the Administration, we have prioritized improving 
     the environmental review process and continue to make 
     advancements in this space that will improve interagency 
     coordination and synchronization of reviews to increase 
     decision-making speed; improve project siting and project 
     quality; expand innovative mitigation approaches; and drive 
     accountability and transparency through the expanded use of 
     an online permitting dashboard. For example, under Executive 
     Order 13604, the interagency infrastructure permitting 
     steering committee established the permitting dashboard, 
     which makes project schedules transparent to the public and 
     is designed to improve the timeliness and environmental 
     outcomes of the permitting process. This was followed by a 
     Presidential Memorandum to Federal Agencies on May 17, 2013 
     to modernize Federal infrastructure review, permitting 
     regulations, policies and procedures to significantly reduce 
     the time it takes to permit infrastructure projects. In 
     addition, CEQ has taken several steps to improve and make 
     more efficient Federal agency decision making.
       This year, the Administration released an updated ``how-
     to'' handbook (also known as the Red Book), Synchronizing 
     Environmental Reviews for Transportation and other 
     Infrastructure Projects, to improve and modernize NEPA and 
     other types of reviews, such as those required under the 
     Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic 
     Preservation Act (NHPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (MSA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), by 
     providing information to facilitate more widespread adoption 
     of concurrent reviews. More synchronized reviews by Federal 
     permitting agencies will lead to more effective and efficient 
     environmental reviews and projects with reduced impacts to

[[Page H6246]]

     the environment as well as savings of time and money.
       CEQ also initiated a NEPA Pilot Program in March 2011 to 
     solicit ideas from Federal agencies and the public about 
     innovative time- and cost-saving approaches to NEPA 
     implementation. Under this process, CEQ is working to 
     identify additional innovative approaches that reduce the 
     time and costs required for effective implementation of its 
     NEPA regulations.
       H.R. 348 would make a number of considerable changes to 
     Federal agency regulatory review, permitting, and 
     environmental analysis that undercut the core principles 
     embodied in NEPA, including reasoned decision-making and 
     public involvement. The legislation seeks to implement these 
     changes to Federal agency decision making under the 
     Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The passage of this 
     legislation will lead to two sets of standards by which 
     Federal agencies would be expected to comply, one for 
     ``construction projects'' under the APA and one for all other 
     Federal actions, such as rulemaking or planning, under NEPA. 
     This would lead to confusion, delay, and inefficiency.
       Moreover, the legislation would direct agencies, upon the 
     request of a project sponsor, to adopt State documents if the 
     State laws and procedures provide environmental protection 
     and opportunities for public involvement ``that are 
     substantially equivalent to NEPA.'' In our view, it is 
     difficult to determine whether a State statute is 
     substantially equivalent to NEPA and the legislation contains 
     no requirement for agencies to determine if the State 
     documents are adequate for NEPA purposes. More importantly, 
     the State document may have looked at a different purpose and 
     need for the project, a different set of alternatives than 
     the Federal agency would have looked at, and relied on 
     different standards for analysis. The State, for example, may 
     not have looked at the same factors that Federal agencies are 
     required to consider, such as environmental justice and 
     wetlands protection. Finally, no two State processes are 
     alike, compounding confusion for projects that cross State 
     lines. Thus, a Federal agency's reliance on State documents 
     may lead to inconsistencies between Federal projects and 
     agencies, different environmental goals and protections, 
     confusion among the public, and unclear results for 
     businesses and project applicants.
       The legislation also establishes arbitrary deadlines for 
     the completion of NEPA analyses. Factors such as feasibility 
     and engineering studies, non-Federal funding, conflicting 
     priorities, local opposition, or applicant responsiveness are 
     just a few examples of delays outside of the control of an 
     agency. Arbitrary deadlines and provisions that automatically 
     approve a project if the agency is unable to make a decision 
     due to one of the factors described above will lead to 
     increased litigation, more delays, and denied projects as 
     agencies will have no choice but to deny a project if the 
     review and analysis cannot be completed before the proposed 
     deadlines.
       These comments illustrate a few of the many concerns we 
     have with the legislation. The Administration would be happy 
     to provide the Committee with a more thorough and exhaustive 
     list of our substantive concerns with the legislation at the 
     request of the Committee.
       In closing, when properly implemented, NEPA improves 
     collaboration, consensus, accountability, and transparency 
     surrounding government decision-making and actions. Our 
     Nation's long-term prosperity depends upon our faithful 
     stewardship of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and 
     the land that supports and sustains us. Our country has been 
     strengthened by the open, accountable, informed, and citizen-
     involved decision-making structure created by NEPA, and our 
     economy has prospered.
           Sincerely,

                                             Christy Goldfuss,

                                                Managing Director,
                                 Council on Environmental Quality.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
say to my colleague from Texas that this bill is about national 
security.
  The gentlewoman is right. We can all agree on the importance of 
national security and protecting our security, but making sure that 
when projects are planned they are implemented within a reasonable 
period of time. And we are talking about years--not days or weeks or 
even months--years for a permitting, years for examination to make sure 
that these are done carefully, but not decades, as happens now with a 
number of different projects that have been discussed over the last 2 
days that, in their current state, without the kinds of repairs, 
without the kinds of increased improvements, without the kinds of 
additional safety and security protections that new projects bring 
online, we are more vulnerable, not less. I fear that the gentlewoman 
from Texas' amendment would do just that.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my good friend for yielding to me.
  Maybe we can work together on this amendment because it is a simple 
carve-out. It should be narrow. It clarifies that the bill's provision 
does not apply to environmental reviews or permitting on other 
agencies' decisions that could deal with potential terrorist attack 
targets, such as chemical facilities and other critical infrastructure. 
I don't think that that is something that the gentleman and myself 
would disagree with and, particularly, the nuclear plants, which take a 
longer period of time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentlewoman 
that the bill allows lots of time for each stage of the permitting 
process to cover and discover ways to make a project more secure, to 
make it safer, to improve it in a variety of different ways; and that 
the gentlewoman's amendment would harm the ability to do that, not 
help, because it would slow down the process under which we would have 
these new projects able to begin construction and then be completed.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in 
House Report 114-261.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or the 
     amendments made by this Act shall have the effect of changing 
     or limiting any law or regulation that requires or provides 
     for public comment or public participation in an agency 
     decision making process.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 420, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment 
is simple. It protects the right of the public to comment.
  This amendment reads: ``Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by 
this Act shall have the effect of changing or limiting any law or 
regulation that requires or provides for public comment or public 
participation in an agency decision making process.''
  Now, yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the Pope, right here in this very room, 
called on each of us to pursue a common good, which he told us requires 
a courageous and responsible effort. And certainly, if we are going to 
protect the common good, it requires that we protect the right of the 
public to comment on projects that have an adverse impact on our 
precious environment, right there where they live.
  This amendment would restore the right of any member of the public to 
comment on construction projects that may have an environmental impact; 
and because of that, I don't expect any opposition to this amendment, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Like a number of well-respected environmental groups, I oppose H.R. 
348, the so-called RAPID Act, which threatens public health and safety 
by putting a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of private sector 
businesses in the project approval process.
  It is yet another antiregulatory measure whose only design is to 
grease the wheels of the approval process of projects that are 
environmentally sensitive.
  Aside from creating duplicative and costly requirements that pertain 
to certain types of projects, the RAPID Act would also limit the right 
of the public to comment on these projects.
  This bill does that in two ways: first, by reducing opportunities for 
public input, and secondly, by fast-tracking

[[Page H6247]]

the approval process through arbitrary deadlines.
  Through an open, flexible, and timely process, NEPA empowers the 
public to weigh in on decisions. That means that the local farmer who 
owns land that would be affected by a Federal construction project--
let's say a nasty pipeline like Keystone--it ensures that that local 
farmer would have the ability and would stand on local footing with the 
construction industry and with the Federal Government.
  My amendment is vital to ensuring that the RAPID Act does not shut 
the public out of the process. I am sure that all minds agree that that 
is reasonable. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I do share, however, the interest of the gentleman from Georgia in 
promoting the common good, as mentioned by Pope Francis when he spoke 
in this Chamber yesterday. But the common good is people coming 
together to improve their lives by creating improved infrastructure for 
transportation, whether that is highways or mass transit, for 
delivering energy resources to places where that energy needs to be 
delivered, to improving the shipping lanes so that goods can be shipped 
to and from this country and within this country in ways that make it 
easier for consumers to receive the energy, the products, the 
transportation that they need and deserve.
  The RAPID Act will create jobs by ensuring that the Federal 
environmental review and permitting process works like it should. It 
will also make sure that these infrastructure projects that deliver the 
common good will do so in a reasonable period of time, so people won't 
have to wait 20 years, like we heard yesterday from the gentleman from 
Texas, about simply lowering the draft, the 8 feet lower, for ships to 
get up the waterway in east Texas to deliver goods and pick up goods 
from ports in that part of the country. Why 20 years to make a decision 
about dredging 8 feet from a waterway?
  The RAPID Act is drafted to make agencies operate efficiently and 
transparently. That is not happening in so many, many instances. But, 
it does not prevent citizens from participating in that process. In 
fact, the bill makes sure that agencies provide the public with 
reasonable public comment periods. It authorizes up to 60 days of 
public comment on Environmental Impact Statements, up to 30 days of 
comments on environmental assessments and other documents, and grants 
the lead agency authority to negotiate extensions or provide them on 
its own ``for good cause.''

                              {time}  1030

  This is more than fair. By comparison, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, which has been cited many times on the other side of the 
aisle, only requires agencies to allow 45 days for public comment--not 
the 60 days provided in the RAPID Act--on draft environmental impact 
statements and 30 days for public comments on final environmental 
impact statements.
  The RAPID Act also reasonably requires that a person comment on an 
environmental document before challenging it in court and bring any 
suit within 6 months as opposed to 6 years. Opponents should not be 
able to delay a project indefinitely by playing ``hide the ball'' with 
agencies or by resting on their rights.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to respond. First, in the narrowed circumstances in 
which an agency may supplement an environmental impact statement under 
the bill, the lead agency ``may'' solicit comments from agencies and 
the public for not more than 30 days beginning on the date of the 
publication of the supplement.
  CEQ regulations require an agency to provide for a 45-day public 
review and comment period, although there is also a provision in the 
CEQ regulations that allows CEQ to approve alternative procedures for 
supplemental EISs if circumstances warrant a deviation from the normal 
process.
  Secondly, under the bill, each participating agency is to limit its 
comments on a project to areas within the authority and expertise of 
the agency and identify statutory authority for their comments.
  It specifically prohibits the lead agency from acting upon, 
responding to or including any document that is ``outside of the 
authority and expertise of the commenting participating agency.''
  This is inconsistent with the CEQ regulations, which allow all 
agencies--whether local, tribal, State, or Federal--to comment on any 
substantive issue relative to the NEPA analysis, just as all members of 
the public should be able to do.
  So, finally, I would just point out that, if we are talking about 
efficiency and if we are talking about the common good, it does the 
public no good to cut out public comment from this process. If we can 
agree on that, then we can agree that this amendment is a good one. 
With that, I ask for its approval.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
  The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________