[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16909-16910]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MIKE QUIGLEY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 12, 2013

  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, we need to do more to protect our 
environment, not less.

[[Page 16910]]

  Last month, for the first time in six years, the House passed a water 
infrastructure bill. For the first time in six years, Congress 
authorized crucial investments in our ports and inland waterways. And 
for the first time in six years, we addressed flood risk management, 
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and environmental 
restoration.
  The Water Resource Reform and Development Act will strengthen our 
national water transportation network to improve our competitiveness, 
create more jobs, and grow our economy. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 
it came at a cost.
  This vital legislation coupled investments in our nation's aging 
infrastructure with the further weakening of one of this nation's most 
important environmental protections: The National Environmental Policy 
Act.
  For more than four decades, the National Environmental Policy Act, or 
NEPA, has provided the foundation for countless improvements in our 
environmental laws. It gives us cleaner water, cleaner air, and a safer 
and healthier environment. It provides critical checks and balances on 
federal planning and decision making, requiring the federal government 
to consider environmental impacts. And it gives the public the 
opportunity to voice their concerns about the impact of federal actions 
on their health, safety, environment, and community.
  This collaborative review process engages millions of Americans along 
with federal and state agencies, and forces the federal government to 
think outside the box and consider better alternatives.
  Over the years, NEPA has saved money, time, and resources. It has 
also protected endangered species, public lands and historical sites, 
all while producing better projects with more public support. For 
example, when the Army Corps of Engineers planned to repair existing 
breakwaters and replace the lock gates of Chicago's harbor, NEPA 
revealed a better method of repairing and extending the life of the 
breakwaters at a fraction of the cost. NEPA has proven that it's 
possible to protect the environment and save the taxpayer money at the 
same time.
  Unfortunately, misperceptions about this foundational environmental 
law are driving congressional attempts to chip it away. NEPA is 
frequently blamed as the leading cause of project delays when, in 
reality, lack of funding is actually to blame. We fault NEPA, when we 
should be blaming ourselves.
  We continue to slash funding for Army Corps construction despite the 
American Society of Civil Engineers' D-minus rating of our nation's 
inland waterways. We can eliminate project delays and protect the 
environment at the same time, but a more serious investment in our 
infrastructure is needed to do so.
  Instead the WRRDA bill passed last week alters the NEPA process, 
weakening environmental protections at a time when they are needed the 
most. This WRRDA has made it more difficult for the public to comment 
on environmental impacts by limiting the comment period to as little as 
60 or 30 days, depending on the type of project. Environmental review 
statements are often hundreds of pages long and full of critical 
scientific research.
  Many critics argue this is barely enough time to read and understand 
a review, let alone consult experts and submit informed public 
comments. These new arbitrary and unreasonably short deadlines hurt 
community voices in speaking out against harmful projects and penalize 
agencies for fulfilling their responsibility to fully deliberate on 
important environmental issues.
  Good science takes time, and the proposed changes to the 
environmental review process give experts little time to adequately 
evaluate the impacts of a project. Environmental reviews are a crucial 
tool for improving transportation projects and safeguarding the 
environment.
  An informed public engagement process produces ideas, information and 
even solutions the government might otherwise have overlooked. 
Streamlining current NEPA provisions carelessly hurts our ability to 
make better decisions that protect our health, our homes and our 
environment.
  Meeting our transportation needs and protecting our environment are 
not mutually exclusive objectives.
  NEPA, Mr. Speaker, is the solution, not the problem.

                          ____________________