[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.
____________________