Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gosar amendment 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source