H.Res. 501

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the American historical record has always been ``the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery.'' However, although the National Bureau of Economic Research states the recession ended 5 years ago, we can agree the recovery has been anything but strong.

Facts are something this administration fights with vehement opposition. Nevertheless, the simple fact is this is the slowest ``recovery'' our country has witnessed since the Truman Presidency.

After the deep recession that began in December of 2007, employment has risen sluggishly, at best, and has risen much more slowly than in the last four recoveries, for certain. According to the CBO, employment at the end of 2013 was about 6 million jobs short of where it would be if the unemployment rate had returned to its pre-recession level.

This is why I have introduced H.R. 2641, the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013, also known as the RAPID Act.

The RAPID Act creates a streamlined Federal environmental review and permitting process that establishes transparency and certainty for job creators. Furthermore, this bill would empower lead agencies to manage environmental reviews from start to finish, as well as establish time constraints on the review process and period in which a claim can be filed.

A recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified 351 State- level projects that, if approved for construction, could have created 1.9 million jobs annually during the projected 7 years of construction. While these numbers help put the issue in perspective, I don't need to see a study to know that bureaucracy is holding up projects and preventing job growth. I see it every day in my district.

For example, one of my constituents, PPL Corporation, filed an application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a state-of-the-art nuclear plant near the company's existing two-unit Susquehanna nuclear power plant. The plant would produce 1,600 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 1 million homes. PPL predicted this one project would create 400 construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs.

In addition, early estimates by PPL were that the project would cost $15 billion to construct. These estimates include escalation, financing costs, initial nuclear fuel, and contingencies and reserves.

Imagine for a moment, if you will, the positive impact of a $15 billion investment in my district in Pennsylvania, the 10th Congressional District.

However, Washington bureaucrats have prevented this project from creating jobs, and it has yet to break ground. Six years after the application was first filed in 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission claims they are still reviewing the company's request for a combined operating license. If these individuals that are reviewing this after 6 years were working in private industry, they would have been fired in the first year. In fact, PPL says, realistically, a final decision on the project is still several years away.

This is ridiculous.

Let me be clear. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 serves worthy goals, which should be preserved. I live out in the country. I get my water from a well. I love to see the deer and the bear come through my land. I raised my children there. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that I would do anything to hurt my children, whether it is water, air, or the environment in general, they really should think again.

Federal agencies should be able to evaluate new projects to ensure that they don't pose a threat to the environment or to the public. However, over time, NEPA regulations have turned into an outdated, burdensome, and convoluted Federal permitting process that must be reined in.

The good news is that a bipartisan consensus exists on the need to reform the permitting process. In fact, the administration, the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and legislation adopted by a strong bipartisan majority in the 109th and 112th Congresses all recognize that an overly burdensome and lengthy environmental review and permitting process undermines economic growth.

The time for these reforms is now, because Americans are ready to get back to work. The RAPID Act of 2013 will remove the red tape and allow job creators to take projects off the drawing board and onto the worksite.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense reform, and I reserve the balance of my time.

March 5, 2014.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

undersigned groups strongly support H.R. 2641, the

``Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development

(RAPID) Act of 2013,'' which would provide a streamlined

process for developers, builders, and designers to obtain

environmental permits and approvals for their projects in a

timely and efficient manner, allowing jobs to be created and

the economy to grow.

Every year that major projects are stalled or cancelled

because of a dysfunctional permitting process and a system

that allows limitless challenges by opponents of development,

millions of jobs are not created. For example, 351 stalled

energy projects reviewed in one 2010 study (Project No

Project) had a total economic value of over $1 trillion and

represented 1.9 American jobs not created. Project No Project

showed that in the energy sector alone, one year of delay

translates into millions of jobs not created.

The Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development

Act of 2013 would improve the environmental review and

permitting process by:

Coordinating responsibilities among multiple agencies

involved in environmental reviews to ensure that ``the trains

run on time;''

Providing for concurrent reviews by agencies, rather than

serial reviews;

Allowing state-level environmental reviews to be used where

the state has done a competent job, thereby avoiding needless

duplication of state work by federal reviewers;

Requiring that agencies involve themselves in the process

early and comment early, avoiding eleventh-hour objections

that can restart the entire review timetable;

Establishing a reasonable process for determining the scope

of project alternatives, so that the environmental review

does not devolve into an endless quest to evaluate infeasible

alternatives;

Consolidating the process into a single Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) and single Environmental Assessment

(EA) for a project, except as otherwise provided by law;

Imposing reasonable fixed deadlines for completion of an

EIS or EA; and

Reducing the statute of limitations to challenge a final

EIS or EA from six years to 180 days.

The RAPID Act is a practical, industry-wide approach that

builds on successful provisions for environmental review

management found in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st

Century Act (MAP-21), Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable,

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users

(SAFETEA-LU), and Section 1609 of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act. The RAPID Act also embodies the procedural

improvements to ``cut red tape'' as called for by the Obama

administration, including, most recently, in his January 28,

2014, State of the Union Address.

The RAPID Act addresses the problem far too many shovel-

ready projects face today: lengthy project delays from

endless environmental reviews and challenges result in lost

opportunities to create jobs and grow the economy. Every year

of delay results in millions of jobs not created. The

creation of millions of jobs is worth ensuring that our

governinent works faster and more efficiently.

The undersigned groups strongly support H.R. 2641. The

RAPID Act would be the strong action needed to speed up the

permitting process and let important projects move forward,

allowing millions of workers to get back to work. We urge you

to support this important bill.

Sincerely,

American Architectural Manufacturers Association, American

Bakers Association, American Chemistry Council, American

Coating Association, American Concrete Pressure Pipe

Association, American Council of Engineering Companies,

American Forest & Paper Association, American Foundry

Society, American Highway Users Alliance, American Iron and

Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American

Rental Association, American Road & Transportation Builders

Association.

American Supply Association, Associated Builders &

Contractors, Associated Builders & Contractors--Rhode Island

Chapter, Associated Equipment Distributors, Associated

General Contractors, Associated Wire Rope Fabricators,

Association of American Railroads, Association of Equipment

Manufacturers, Construction Industry Round Table, Edison

Electric Institute, Electronic Security Association, Forging

Industry Association, Foundry Association of Michigan,

Independent Electrical Contractors, Industrial Energy

Consumers of America, Industrial Fasteners Institute,

Industrial Minerals Association--North America, Metals

Service Center Institute.

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, National

Association of Electrical Distributors, National Association

of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers,

National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National

Black Chamber of Commerce, National Electrical Manufacturers

Association, National Federation of Independent Business,

National Industrial Sand Association, National Mining

Association, National Oilseed Processors Association,

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, National Roofing

Contractors Association, National Shippers Strategic

Transportation Council.

National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, Non-Ferrous

Founders' Society, North American Equipment Dealers

Association, Nuclear Energy Institute, Ohio Cast Metals

Association, Pacific-West Fastener Association, Pennsylvania

Foundry Association, Petroleum Marketers Association of

America, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, South

Carolina Timber Producers Association, Texas Cast Metals

Association, Textile Rental Services Association, U.S.

Chamber of Commerce, Washington Retail Association, Wisconsin

Cast Metals Association, Wisconsin Grocers Association.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

It is almost amusing to hear my colleagues from the other side say how much they want to work together, how much they want to get this country moving, how much they want to create jobs.

Since I have been here--this is my second term, fourth year--I have seen virtually no cooperation from the other side in creating jobs. They get up, and they give a good speech about names, but there is no substance to it. There is no substance to it at all.

As a matter of fact, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. Both sides support this.

You know, my colleagues had control of the House prior to the Republicans controlling it 4 years ago. They touched none of these issues.

And I want to ask the American people--not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--how has this Federal regulation system been going over the last 5 years?

Virtually no jobs created, agencies stopping everything they can under this administration, but yet they stand up and give a good speech about cooperation. I have rarely seen it here.

I have seen obstructionists because it is a power play. You know, when someone comes up with a good idea--and I blame both sides over the years for this--it is not what is in the best interests of the American people. It is who is in power that wants to keep it and who is not in power that wants to take it away. And you know something? The American people are completely forgotten about.

Well, one of the reasons--the main reason I came to Washington was to work for the American people, not to preserve my job, not to keep power, not to take power; but it was to do what is right. And if you would listen to what has taken place in some of the hearings over the past 3.5 years that I have been involved in, you don't hear cooperation. You don't hear it at all.

So now, I ask my colleagues on the other side: How is that Federal system going? How is that permitting system going--that regulating system going?

It is not going well at all. Just ask industry how much it has been slowed down because of regulation, and thousands and thousands of more regulations have been implemented by this administration than ever before. So let's get serious, okay? Let's be honest with the American people about what this is about.

The Federal government doesn't create jobs. Private sector creates jobs. The responsibility of the Federal Government is to remove obstacles that allow private industry to do what they do best--better than the Federal Government.

And as I said before, I have met a lot of good people here in Congress. I have met a lot of good people in the Federal system. But there is a fair number of people in the Federal system, in these agencies, that go out and say ``no,'' just for the sake of saying ``no,'' that if they had to go to work in private industry and operated under the same premise that they did in the Federal Government, they would be fired.

It is about time we start standing up for the American people and create jobs; and I hear from this administration constantly, but there are always obstacles. There are 40-some pieces of legislation sitting on Harry Reid's desk, the leader of the Senate, the Democrat who won't even bring it to the floor for a vote.

That is a disgrace. Bring it to the floor for a vote. Vote it up or down, but let the American people know what is being voted on; and it should be brought to the floor, so they know what is going on here.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the remainder of the time, Mr. Chairman.

You know, Mr. Chairman, to bring about real and durable job recovery, there can be only one conclusion about what the House can do today, and it should vote to pass the RAPID Act.

My friend on the other side talks about the post office, and I support them. My mother worked for the post office. But you know something? The post office is self-funded, okay?

Where is the $1 trillion that this administration put into the so- called stimulus? It did nothing. It wasn't applied properly. It wasn't utilized.

This doesn't cut regulations, this legislation. It doesn't cut regulations. It cuts making a decision from 15 years down to 4.5 years. Just think in our households, how many of us would have delayed by years making decisions, were it be.

This is bipartisan legislation that would transform into immediate action

the recommendations of the President's Jobs Council, the exhortations of Vice President Biden, and the promises President Obama made.

The President's Jobs Council stated that our system for permitting and approving job-creating projects leads to delays and litigation and recommended in 2011 that the process be streamlined. The RAPID Act does that.

President Obama, in his 2014 State of the Union Address, promised action to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. The RAPID Act delivers that.

Let's come together, Republicans and Democrats, for the hardworking Americans desperate for new and high-paying jobs. The RAPID Act allows that to happen.

On average, it takes the Federal Government 10 to 15 years to approve permitting. If private industry operated in such an irresponsible manner, it would be bankrupt.

Instead of talking the talk, it is time to walk the walk and pass this legislation that will create excellent-paying jobs.

My legislation reduces permitting down to 4.5 years, and it doesn't take any authority away. It appoints a single entity, a Federal agency that has a major hand in this for oversight.

And if my colleagues are saying: well, it is not the Federal Government, it is the State and local governments.

Then that agency can light the fire under that local or State government and tell them: you must get your approvals in or, by a certain time, your opportunity to do that will be waived.

So still, in an effort to reach across the aisle and work with my colleagues and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, let's cut the red tape. Ask the people in my district about red tape--those from the VA, those from Social Security--what they have to go through with agencies--those from EPA, those from OSHA. It is a disaster.

So let's come together, Republicans and Democrats, for the hardworking Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my colleague with whom we have worked closely on several matters on several committees, Mr. Chairman, the American people desperately need new jobs. Just this week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that America's labor force participation rate is at a 35-year low. Over 92 million Americans who could work are outside of the workforce. That is more than the population of all but 14 of the world's 228 countries--and more than every country in the Western Hemisphere but 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 hope, and produce millions of new jobs.

We must pass the bill, not weaken it, to provide these new, high-wage jobs. But the gentlelady's amendment would weaken the bill in one of the worst possible ways. It would remove the clear consequence 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 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 responsible, 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, and, reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am just going to close on this thought here. My colleague on the other side says that 4\1/2\ years is just simply not enough time to go through the permitting and licensing project. Just think about this: ask the people in the private sector when you see buildings going up, before they are going up when there is a statement on the land where the building is going to go up as to this project is going to take place in so much time, ask those people, get information to see how long it takes the private sector to do the same thing that the Federal Government is supposed to be doing. At most, a couple of years--not 10 years, not 12 years, not 15 years. Private industry can have this done in a couple of years with all the research, with all the permitting, with all the licensing, and with all the hearings.

I think one of my colleagues said this blocks out the public from hearing or making any statements. That is simply

not true. That is absolutely not true. The public still has the time and can do that.

So with that, I oppose my good friend's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, just to highlight some construction that has taken place in the past before we had all this regulation: San Francisco Bay Bridge construction started July 9, 1933, and the bridge opened up on November 12, 1936. Chesapeake Bay Bridge construction started in January of 1949 and the

bridge opened up July 30, 1952. Empire State Building construction started January 22, 1930, and the building opened up May 1, 1931. The Chrysler Building construction began in 1926 and was completed in 1930. One of my favorites: the new Yankee Stadium groundbreaking was in August of 2006; opening day was April of 2009.

There are thousands of comedians out of business. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would get serious about following the premise that the American people want--less red tape--instead of trying to be funny, we would be in good shape.

Let me thank the manager, my friend, Congressman Johnson, Mr. Marino, our colleagues on the floor of the House, and as well on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chair, I rise to accept the fact that there are opportunities for discussion on streamlining and effectively expediting processes in a collaborative way in the Federal Government to continue to move forward the Federal Government, as it is responsible to the American people. Unfortunately, I believe that we are not at that place today with H.R. 2641.

President Obama has been cited repeatedly. I believe that his words at that time and today are accurate. No one would want the Federal Government to stall moving projects forward.

I might ask my colleagues, however, if they would join me in fully funding infrastructure and rebuilding this country, which we have not been able to do for almost 5 years.

By reading the Statement of Administration Policy, the administration strongly rejects the legislation's premise in H.R. 2641 that public input and responsible agency decisionmaking under current law hinders job creation. The administration believes that H.R. 2641, if enacted, will lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic growth.

There lies, Mr. Chairman, the underpinnings of the President's veto threat.

Where is this bill going?

I will, at the appropriate time, place the administration's statement into the Record.

So what are we talking about with this legislation? One, this legislation would narrow the scope of judicial review. In addition, this legislation would narrow the review by one Federal agency, who would allegedly coordinate other Federal and State agencies.

Let me tell you what the problem with that is, Mr. Chairman; that is that each of the agencies have their own extra expertise, so you are snuffing their expertise. You are quashing their expertise. You are forcing one agency to be the giant understander of all the nuances of the other agencies which have a responsibility to their constituency and to the American people.

Then you have a set of circumstances that suggests, as my amendment will hope to correct, that you are going to deem up. If you don't get the job done, we are going to deem you up. Beam you up. We are going to just assume that everything has been done and you can go forward. It doesn't matter whether you trample on farmland in Texas or whether or not you are, in essence, leveling suburban homes in Pennsylvania or whether or not you are in the mountains of Georgia and cause havoc.

So I would make the argument that this is not an act that is answering the question. It is a solution searching for a problem. Frankly, the argument made by many of us is the principal causes of unjustified delay in implementing the NEPA review process are inadequate agency resources. And the Bush administration noted that NEPA was not a cause for delay.

I would ask my colleagues, how can we work together?

I think for a moment I will just pause and say that yesterday was an unfortunate incident in the House Oversight Committee. It did not reflect well on this institution or chairmen who lead committees.

I pause to say that because I believe it is an important statement to make on the Floor of the House, that we should never have a setting in a committee where a ranking member is silenced, or that a hand is used across one's neck to make a comment about an individual not being able to speak. All of us are equal.

I raise that here because we are talking about process and procedure. And even though one might argue that there was a regular process of this particular legislation, we could have been more collaborative, because I am empathetic and I am sympathetic that we all want to make sure that projects move quickly, that jobs are created.

But the administration has made an assessment that NEPA is not the delay; the Bush administration has done so. And what we need is to fully fund the government with adequate resources so that our agencies with the appropriate staff can move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I am from the region of the oil spill of 2010, and that oil spill, at that time voices that were Republican and Democrat from the gulf region were raising their voices about the process of review.

What happened with BOMA? Why wasn't there some understanding that there were some cracks in the system? Even the industry recognized that we must work on best practices, not less regulation--not bad practices, but best practices.

And what did we do? We have put in regulations that would enhance oversight of the issues of drilling.

So, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I rise to oppose this legislation. We could do it more collaboratively, and we need to treat each other with the dignity and the respect that this particular institution deserves, both in committees and on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2641, the ``Responsible and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013, or as some have termed it, the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.''

If the 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.

Mr. Chair, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many members of the House Judiciary Committee, which marked up this bill last summer, with the NEPA process.

Why are we wasting time with this bill when we could be passing H.R. 3546, a bill introduced by my colleague Sandy Levin, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee which amends the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to extend emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) payments for eligible individuals to weeks of employment ending on or before January 1, 2015.

Or we could bring up and pass H.R. 3888, ``The New Chance For a New Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced which provides grants for training to those out of work--who are merely seeking to pull themselves up by their bootstraps--the American way.

But here we are on the Floor of the House of Representatives voting and speaking on the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.''

There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few months.

Something is wrong with this picture.

But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a problem.

The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is worse than a disease.

There is a major problem with the section that my amendment addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for positive agency action.

I expect to speak on my amendment shortly but suffice it-to-say, this bill goes out of its way to ensure that some projects might be prematurely. approved.

That's because under H.R. 2641, 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 180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency.

This creates a set of perverse incentives. 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. 2641 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. Chair, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA.

The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years provided an 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.

I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed and jaded legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2641--Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act

of 2013

(Rep. Marino, R-Pennsylvania, and 10 cosponsors, Mar. 5, 2014)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2641, which would

undercut responsible decision-making and public involvement

in the Federal environmental review and permitting processes.

As the Administration said when this legislation was

considered previously, H.R. 2641 will increase litigation,

regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve

a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed

before the proposed arbitrary deadlines. This legislation

complicates the regulatory process and creates two sets of

standards for Federal agencies to follow to review projects--

one for ``construction projects'' and one for all other

Federal actions, such as rulemakings or management plans.

The Administration strongly rejects the legislation's

premise that public input and responsible agency decision-

making under current law hinders job creation. The

Administration believes that H.R. 2641, if enacted, will lead

to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in

the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic

growth. The Administration supports efforts to improve the

efficiency of the environmental review processes without

diminishing requirements for rigorous analyses, agency

consultation, and public participation. This includes an

Interagency Steering Committee that will publish a plan with

15 reforms and over 80 actions to modernize the Federal

permitting and review of major infrastructure projects.

If the President were presented with H.R. 2641, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the provision deeming approved any project in which the agency does not meet deadlines contained in the bill. As we have listened to the discussion, as I indicated in my earlier time on the floor, there is much that we can agree to on the issue of making more effective our Federal Government, making it work for the people. We all agree to that. In fact, I had suggested that we provide full funding for infrastructure rebuild.

But this bill ignores the value of oversight. The bill also ignores the fact that NEPA has, for more than 40 years, provided an 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.

I want to read into the Record a comment that I made earlier, why this is a misdirected legislation. The CEQ, general counsel for 25 years during the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations, who was intimately involved in the implementation of NEPA through the executive branch, observed most delays in the environmental review processes are caused by factors other than NEPA or justified by the nature of the project.

But yet this bill would indicate that if by the time that this bill designates the oversight has not been finished--that could be an oversight for a nuclear-fired plant; it could be an oversight dealing with some of the energy resources that we have that require that kind of oversight; it could be the oversight of building a major construction project through a heavily populated neighborhood; or it could be oversight on many aspects of America's business--then this bill says it is simply deemed up--deemed up, Mr. Chairman.

So how can one believe that problems will be solved by just ignoring--ignoring--the process?

There is a major problem with the section that my amendment addresses, and that is that automatic approval, that deeming up, that beaming up. And so I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment which relieves us of that burden of fearfully passing legislation that would, in fact, deem up.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Let me restate again what is in this legislation.

If a Federal agency fails to approve or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the determination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved--deemed approved--by such agency.

Mr. Chairman, do the American people want something deemed approved that might be a dangerous and unsuitable project in their community?

And as it relates to the creation of jobs, I thank the gentleman for his explanation, but I will tell you that it is said by the Federal Highway Administration, the majority of the approved projects required limited documentation or analysis under NEPA. Further, when environmental requirements have caused project delays, requirements established under laws other than NEPA have generally been the fault. NEPA has not stopped the creation of jobs.

But what I can tell my good friend is that, if we could pass the unemployment insurance extension, we can give opportunity to Americans to keep looking for jobs; and if we pass an infrastructure bill, we would have jobs.

So my point is that my amendment is very simple. It is just to eliminate that provision that might dangerously put Americans in jeopardy by, in essence, allowing projects to be approved while there is a studious, conscientious review of that project that is to generate jobs but to provide for the safety, the security, the tranquility, and the peace of the American people. I can't imagine that we would want to throw into legislation on streamlining an absolute hatchet that says your neck is cut off if, in fact, you are not finished with your work; the heck with it, we are going on to produce this project.

I know that the American people believe in the spirit of my good friend from Pennsylvania's intentions. We can work together. We can put legislation forward that can be constructive. But a shortened time of 4 years is nothing to celebrate if, in essence, the time is needed for review.

I have cited some of the challenges that we face: oil spills; construction projects that have seen large numbers of deaths because of the way it was done; collapse of buildings, as we have seen in the tragedy of the building that was collapsed in Pennsylvania; and other terrible disasters that have occurred that require the rebuild of certain facilities in the United States.

I cannot imagine--again, I might say that the general counsel that was general counsel for the CEQ to all of the last four Presidents has indicated NEPA is not a problem.

I ask that my amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment, be supported and make this legislation a step better and a step in a direction to get it where it should be. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2641, the ``Responsible and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013.''

If the 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. Chair, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many members of this committee with the NEPA process.

There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few months.

Something is wrong with this picture.

But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a problem.

Mr. Chair, why are we wasting time with this bill when we could be passing H.R. 3546, a bill introduced by my colleague Sandy Levin, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee, which amends the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to extend emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) payments for eligible individuals to weeks of employment ending on or before January 1, 2015.

Or we could bring up and pass H.R. 3888, ``The New Chance For a New Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced which provides grants for training to those out of work--who are merely seeking to pull themselves up by their bootstraps--the American way.

But here we are on the Floor of the House of Representatives voting and speaking on the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.''

The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is worse than a disease.

There is a major problem with the section that my amendment addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for positive agency action.

Under H.R. 2641, 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 180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency.

This creates a set of perverse incentives. 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. 2641 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.

The Jackson Lee Amendment sets up a trigger after a period of time for a process, which is not automatic approval, but is rather a convening of the stakeholders around figuring out what is standing in the way of the NEPA decision.

Mr. Chair, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA.

The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years provided an 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.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2641 and keep Americans working.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 2824.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is well-known the Obama administration has waged a long-running war on coal, which last year a White House adviser admitted ``is exactly what's needed,'' but this is not only a war on coal. It is a war on jobs, our economy, affordable energy, small businesses, and the household budgets of American families. Already faced with higher home heating costs, middle class families will be further squeezed if the Obama administration is successful in its attempts to shut down coal production.

One of the ways the administration has carried out this war on coal is through the reckless rewrite of a coal production regulation, the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule. Shortly after taking office, the Obama administration discarded the 2008 rule that went through 5 years of extensive public comment and environmental review. Since then, the administration has spent over 10 million taxpayer dollars in working to rewrite this rule, including hiring new contractors, then only to dismiss those same contractors once it was publicly revealed that the administration's proposed rewrite would cost 7,000 jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States. A report released by our House Natural Resources Committee staff in September of 2012, following years of oversight and investigations, exposed the gross mismanagement of the rulemaking process, potential political interference, and widespread economic harm the proposed regulation would cause.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General, or IG, released a report with similar findings. However, what is more troubling is that the IG has identified significant ongoing problems with the rulemaking process. To make matters worse, they are refusing to disclose those problems to us here in Congress. For example, there is an entire section of the report that we have received, entitled ``Issues with the New Contract,'' that have been almost completely blacked out. Despite our repeated requests, Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall has refused to give Congress an unredacted copy of this report. In a letter, she states that the Department of the Interior decided that it should be withheld from the committee.

The IG is charged with being an independent watchdog for Congress. It is completely unacceptable and inappropriate for the IG to be taking orders from the Interior Department, especially about what information to withhold from us here in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I don't take what I am going to say lightly. That is why, today, I have issued a subpoena to the Department's Inspector General Kendall for this information that she has withheld from us. If the IG discovered ongoing issues with the way the Department is currently conducting this rulemaking process, they have a responsibility and a duty to share that information with Congress now. The committee is not asking the IG for materials produced by the Department, but we are asking for materials and interviews produced by the IG's staff.

The Obama administration's rulemaking process has been and continues to be an unmitigated disaster. Despite having spent millions of taxpayer dollars, they have absolutely nothing to show for it and, to date, haven't even produced a draft. Meanwhile, States, industry, and America's coal miners are left in limbo, unsure of what the operating rules are on the ground. Without the 2008 rule, we are left with a rule that was put in place in 1983.

That is why we are here today--to consider H.R. 2824, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act. This legislation will put an end to the years of ongoing waste and dysfunction. It will put in place a responsible process to ensure there is no rush to recklessly regulate.

First, Mr. Chairman, it stops the administration's unnecessary rewrite and implements the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule that I mentioned took 5 years to put in place. It then directs the Department to responsibly study the impact of the rule for a prescribed period of time prior to initiating another new rule. This will provide certainty to the economy, to the individual States, and allow a clear examination of what may be needed and changed in the future. This bill will make certain that a new rule is written properly.

Now, some will attempt to criticize this bill for the fact that it puts in place the 2008 rule that was vacated on a very narrow technical ground by a Federal judge last month. There is really nothing new here, however, because this is the exact outcome that the administration has been seeking for over 5 years--to get rid of the 2008 rule. But let's be clear what the court ruling and, subsequently, the Department's actions really mean.

The court ruling strikes down the more protective 2008 rule and sets us back 30 years to a less restrictive 1983 rule. The 2008 rule is more modern and more protective in limiting the impacts of coal mining than the 1983 rule, but one Federal judge ruled that the 2008 rule must be set aside due to a narrow procedural technicality. This judge ruled, because the 2008 rule didn't have formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on possible impacts to endangered species, the entire rule

should be set aside and, thus, revert back to the 1983 rule.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, there were multiple meetings and discussions and consultations with Fish and Wildlife in proposing the 2008 rule regarding species when the 2008 rule was written, and it was done in a published and transparent fashion over a multiple-year period. Comments were taken and recommendations were made, but the bureaucratic process wasn't done precisely so, and as a result, this judge struck it down. Compare this conscientious effort, which was done to protect species in the 2008 rule, with the fact that there was absolutely zero consultation of protecting species in the 1983 rule.

What could be the responsible thing to do? Clearly, it would be to implement the more modern and protective 2008 rule. What does the Obama administration say? It says let's go back to 1983. Why should we go back? It simply makes no sense to discard a modern rule, where we know the ESA consultation took place, for a 30-year-old rule that we know had no ESA consultations.

Perhaps we should look to the people whom the Obama administration hired to write a rule of its own. In case notes that the committee obtained from the IG's office during their investigation, it quotes one of the current contractors, admitting, ``The 1983 rule was less restrictive than the 2008 rule.'' In the same case notes, it also states about the current contractor that, although she is a Democrat, the Stream Protection Rule appears to be an ``effort to kill coal mining.'' There you have it--straight from the mouth of the person who is working on the current rewrite--an admission that the new rule is an effort to ``kill coal mining.''

That is why we must take action today to stop this administration. Not only are they attempting to impose a new coal regulation that will destroy thousands of American mining jobs, but they have also wasted 5 years and over 10 million taxpayer dollars on a process that has been completely dysfunctional and misguided.

Enough is enough. Republicans want to create an America that works, and that requires access to affordable energy. If we do not stop the administration from implementing its new coal regulation, thousands of Americans will be out of work, and home heating costs for working middle class families will rise.

Let's pass this legislation to protect American taxpayer dollars, to protect American jobs, and to end this administration's reckless, wasteful rewrite by putting in place a responsible process that will allow a proper new rule to be written.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee dealing with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a new Member, not necessarily a brand-new Member, but a newer Member.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes, again, to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Chairman, I would advise my friend from New Jersey I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on my side?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue about this, they are making arguments that are pre-1977. Now, why do I say that? Because they are talking about their perception of mountaintop mining or surface mining probably in general. Well, it is precisely that argument that led to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 under the Carter administration--with a Democrat Congress, I might add. So that bill passed to allow for surface mining.

Now, there is always necessary rulemaking that comes after that, and the latest rulemaking prior to the turn of this century was in 1983 under the Reagan administration. So the Bush administration looked because of some court test that maybe we ought to rewrite this rule; and, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what my friends on the other side of the aisle said that that was a late-breaking rule, it took 5 years to put that together--5 years to put that together.

So, as a result, because of this court decision that ended up vacating because of the technicality of the 2008 rule, the issue before us is this: Do we put the 2008 rule in place, which is what the focus of this legislation is, and then look forward to further rulemaking, or do we vacate the 2008 rule and go back to 1983? That is what the choice is.

What I find that is so interesting about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that everybody acknowledges that the 2008 rule is more restrictive--more restrictive--but they want to go back to the 1983 rule. I find that hard to understand, but at least that is what appears to be their argument.

So, Mr. Chairman, we think the responsible way to do this is to take into consideration what the Bush administration did for 5 years, looking at proper rulemaking that, by the way, looked into the Endangered Species Act. That is something the '83 rule did not look at at all. So we think that is a better way to put that in place right now. It is a more restrictive rule that industry understands, the States understand, and it is probably better for energy certainty in this country.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I find it hard sometimes to listen to this debate, especially when I hear my good friends on the other side of the aisle defending anything that the Reagan administration did. But they are doing it, so I will acknowledge that there is some substance there, but let me just go back to what I mentioned in my closing arguments.

SMCRA was passed in 1977. The Reagan rulemaking was 6 years after that. So there has not been an update on that rule--right now--for 30 years,

but it was more likely probably 20 years when the Bush administration thought it should be updated.

Now I want to get right to the heart of the matter and the reason that the environmental community does not like the 2008 rule and instead opts for the 1983 Reagan rule. They don't like it because the 2008 rule will provide clarity and certainty in the SMCRA process, which of course will free up job creation, meaning that there is going to be some certainty in coal production; rather, the environmental community would like to use loopholes that they found in the 1983 rulemaking to take people to court.

That is exactly why, from my perspective, that this amendment is offered, to go back to the Reagan times so there can be probably more litigation and less certainty in rulemaking of surface mining.

The gentleman mentioned, for example the 100-foot buffer zone. The Bush rule has a 100-foot buffer zone just like the Reagan rule. Nothing changed there. The only changes in the long run in rulemaking is certainty, and those who like to go to court don't like certainty. That is why I believe we have this improbable defense of anything that Reagan did, because they see that over a period of time there are ways that you can manipulate that to their advantage.

I think the Bush rule--which I said several times and is even acknowledged by the coal mining industry that it is more restrictive but has more certainty in it--is a better model, and it is precisely what this legislation does. It takes us to the 2008 rule.

This amendment takes us back to the 1983 rule, and I don't think that is a proper way to go. I urge rejection of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Very briefly, and maybe we are caught here in semantics, but the issue--I have said several times and it has been acknowledged that the 2008 rule is more restrictive. My friend on the other side of the aisle and the author of the amendment said, ``Let me be clear, the 2008 rule is not as protective.''

I think when we are talking about protecting the environment, that ``restrictive'' and ``protective'' are probably synonymous in nature. So when we hear statements made by the industry that the 2008 rule is more restrictive, I take them at their word.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have to make this point and this point is very important because we need to have a certainty supply of energy in this country if we are going to have a growing economy. I am in favor of all of the above, and that certainly includes coal. Unless you have certainty in the regulations, you will not have an energy source.

As I have said right from the start--and as a matter of fact, many have acknowledged within the administration that this administration has a war on coal--this provides certainty. It is contrary to where the administration obviously wants to go because it does provide certainty with our energy production. So I would urge rejection of this amendment, which would take us back to a rule that would be more potentially litigious in nature to something that has certainty. With that, I urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, before I speak directly as to why we should not adopt this amendment, let me respond to the rhetorical question that my friend from Pennsylvania asked when he said:

How can you say that this administration rule, which hasn't been promulgated yet, will cost jobs?

Well, I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that there were leaked documents of the first initial rewrite of the 2008 amendment, leaked documents that said that the contractor that was hired by the administration to rewrite the rule came back with the conclusion that 7,000 jobs would be lost in 22 States. So what was the response of the Obama administration? They fired the contractor; it was the wrong message.

Now they are still in the rulemaking process. But, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you, I doubt that the philosophy has changed from that very way because they are trying to manipulate which rules to follow to minimize what we found out in the initial go-round.

So let me just talk about this amendment. This amendment is not only unnecessary, it is actually harmful to protecting states' rights. Under SMCRA of 1977, State regulations have to meet or exceed the new regulation issued by the Office of Surface Mining. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate the ability of States to meet these rules by mandating that States can only exceed the OSM rules. This ignores both the history of Federal-State regulations with regard to rulemaking but also the need for flexibility in the States to meet the OSM rules while protecting their own geology, hydrology, and community interests.

Again, States already have the ability to change regulations to meet or exceed Federal rules with regards to all aspects of the regulatory regime under SMCRA.

We should not limit the ability to have flexibility in meeting the new rules. This amendment would mandate that you could only change that by increasing it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the wrong way to go. I think the amendment is ill-advised.

I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2641, the so-called Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013.

Contrary to the bill's short title, H.R. 2641 would result in confusion and delay in the review and permitting process for certain construction projects. Most importantly, it would pose serious threats to public health and safety. By carving out a separate environmental review process for construction projects, which this bill doesn't even define, by the way, this bill would effectively create two different environmental review processes for the same project: one that applies to the construction phase of the project, whatever that means under the bill, and one that applies to every other phase of the project.

For instance, the bill's requirements would apply to building a nuclear reactor but not to decommissioning the reactor or transporting or storing the reactor's spent fuel after it has been decommissioned. Worse yet, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis. It does this by restricting the opportunity for meaningful public participation, and it imposes deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances. In doing so, H.R. 2641 forecloses potentially critical input from Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested parties for construction projects that are federally funded or that require Federal approval.

This is why I have offered an amendment ensuring that the public's right to participate in the review process is not cut off by this measure, and if an agency fails to meet the unrealistic deadlines mandated by H.R. 2641, the bill would automatically green-light a project regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly reviewed the project's risks.

These failings of the bill, along with many others, explain why the President's Council on Environmental Quality and more than 20 respected environmental groups vigorously oppose this bill. It is also the reason, yesterday, the administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy, whereby the recommendation to the President, in noting that these new rules would actually cause more confusion, would be to veto the bill if passed by this House and the Senate and once it arrives at his desk.

Last but not least, H.R. 2641 fails to address the real problem with construction projects. The RAPID Act is clearly intended to apply to infrastructure projects. Yet this bill does nothing to address the actual causes of construction delays, which is the lack of funding.

Insofar as the Savannah River port dredging is concerned, the Corps of Engineers approved that project back in 2012. Of course, since 2012, in addition to shutting down the government for 16 days, we have been cutting funds for these kinds of projects. So, today, for politicians to clamor for a spotlight and then denounce the lack of funding for these very important and crucial projects for the Nation's economic well-being, it is really ridiculous that we would stand here and act like it is regulations that are holding things back. No. It is the money.

For example, there is currently a $60 billion backlog of projects authorized under the Water Resources Act. Although every single one of these projects has been successfully approved using existing review procedures under NEPA, not a single one of these projects has begun construction. Why? Because the most recent appropriations for the Corps' construction budget was only $1.2 billion. That is $60 billion in approved projects that would improve the Nation's infrastructure had they not been delayed.

Clearing this backlog would be a force multiplier in creating jobs, spurring innovation, and growing the economy. That is a jobs bill, Mr. Chairman. What is more, the Obama administration is doing everything that it can to improve the performance of Federal permitting and the review of infrastructure projects.

In March 2012, the administration issued Executive Order 13604 to modernize the Federal infrastructure permitting process and cut in half the timeline for approving infrastructure projects. This order incentivized better outcomes for communities and the environment while cutting red tape. Since implementing this order, agencies have expedited permits for over 50 major projects. In one instance, agencies shaved up to 3 years off the timeline of the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement project in New York. That is a multibillion-dollar project that is putting Americans back to work. The President then issued another memorandum in June of 2013, further directing Federal agencies to develop an integrated interagency pre-application process for significant offshore electric transmission projects requiring Federal approval.

Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues often claim to want to get Americans back to work, so I have to ask:

Why do we need legislation that does not create a single job--a bill that will pick winners and losers and a bill that makes the process less clear and less protective of public health and safety? Why do we need that legislation? Why must we continue to waste this Chamber's precious time on bills that do nothing?

Mr. Chairman, we should work together to address the real causes for delay in the NEPA process instead of debating this dangerous bill. In light of the bill's many serious flaws, I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I point out to my friend from Alabama that you cannot do construction projects without Federal funding. If there is no funding that has been appropriated, then the projects don't get done. That is what we have had here in this Congress.

Currently, we have a $60 billion backlog of projects authorized under the Water Resources Development Act. Each and every one of those projects has great importance. All of the regulatory work has been done. The projects are cleared. We just simply do not fund them here because this Congress does not want it to be said by the American people that the current administration is responsible for an economic turnaround.

Despite their best efforts and most insistent efforts, the economy continues to move along favorably, though not at the rate that we need it to. So we really need to have legislation that we are considering and debating on this floor that will create jobs and economic prosperity for Americans, as opposed to these anti-regulatory bills that come forth--it looks like about five or six every week are coming by--plus, we have to pepper in a dose of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act every once in awhile. Fifty times we have done that. Not one job created.

That is the problem that we have.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out in the Rules Committee last night that it was the approval process that was holding up the dredging project for the Port of Savannah.

Just yesterday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution refuted this claim. In reality, this project--and countless others like it--are held up by a lack of funding.

To quote the article:

In the old days, a Congress that didn't agree with White

House priorities simply loaded its own projects into the

budget, in a bit of horse-trading.

But Republicans, particularly in the House, have placed

such bargaining out of bounds--a self-imposed restriction on

their own influence.

Because, under the House rules, this is an earmark.

The Savannah River Port dredging would be an earmark.

And so for us to place something in the budget which is not

in the budget already--it's not allowed.

That is quoting from my colleague, Representative Kingston. Because it is an earmark, in other words, Congress or its representatives would be barred by our own rules from placing funding in the budget for a project.

It is unfortunate that my colleagues from Georgia on the other side of the aisle, aided and abetted by their colleagues on the other side of the aisle from across the country, can't seem to adjust their legislative actions to suit the people that they represent.

This Savannah River Port dredging is very important to Georgia's economy. It is the most important economic development project on the table, and it is ready to go, but the bond between these legislators and the big, bad Tea Party has them afraid to do what is in the best interest of their States. That is a shame.

I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, to blame the lack of job creation on the inefficiency of regulations is kind of like--it reminds me of when you are downstairs in the bathroom and something is leaking from the upstairs bathroom and then someone tells you that it is raining. It just doesn't make sense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my good friend and ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chair, the Federal Government does not create a single job. I don't know exactly how many jobs we are talking about cutting in the Federal Government from the drawdown of the defense, but there will certainly be less federally employed Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine personnel and those who work in the Department of Defense to support their efforts to defend this Nation to keep us strong.

The Federal Government does not create a single job. Delivering our mail provides good-paying jobs, middle class.

But I must rise in opposition to this legislation, Mr. Chair, because it would just sow utter confusion. H.R. 2641 does that by creating a separate, but only partly parallel environmental review process for construction projects that will only cause confusion, delay, and litigation.

As a result of this bill, there could potentially be two different environmental review processes for the same project. Rather than improving the environmental review process, this bill will complicate it and generate litigation.

But more importantly, the bill is yet another effort by my friends on the other side of the aisle to gum up the regulatory process and, thus, undermine regulatory protections.

As with all other anti-regulatory bills that this Congress has considered over the last few weeks, this measure is simply another thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of Federal agencies to do the work that Congress requires them to do.

Accordingly, I strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would prohibit an agency from considering the social cost of carbon--social cost of carbon--in an agency's environmental review of a proposed construction project.

This amendment ignores the fundamental reality that climate change is real and we need to do something about it. The social cost of carbon, or SCC, is an estimate of the social and economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that began under the Bush administration and has been upheld by the courts. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to include SCC in its light-truck fuel economy standards in 2007.

Thomas Sterner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund, cited the Obama administration's SCC estimates as ``a welcome step forward, reflecting the latest versions of the underlying models.'' Billy Pizer, a Duke University economist, notes that the ``key thing is we are recognizing the answer is not zero. We know there are negative consequences. And we are trying to put an accurate dollar value on it.''

Even William Bumpers, an attorney with Baker Botts, who typically represents manufacturers in pollution cases, acknowledged that the ``only real cost of carbon that I know is wrong is zero.''

Perhaps most importantly for purposes of this amendment is that there is overwhelming consensus that every ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere has very real costs to human health, ecosystems, and the economy.

The SCC estimates involve extensive analysis of the best available peer-reviewed literature and climate economic assessment models. They include a broad range of costs associated with anticipated climate impacts on society, such as the property damage from increased flood risks, or the additional energy costs associated with climate oscillations.

Since 2009 alone, there have been a series of major climatic events that demonstrate the costly effects of climate change. How many so- called ``hundred-year storms'' have to hit a major city like New York before climate skeptics will wake up?

The 2011 Texas drought alone cost farmers and ranchers over $5 billion. How many farmer's crops must wither on the vine before we face up to the real costs inaction?

I ask my colleagues to oppose this very detrimental amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make the so-called RAPID Act, which, by the way, I would rename, as our caucus has done, the Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.

This RAPID Act will apply retroactively to construction projects that are currently under review. As a result, all of the bill's problematic provisions that we have cited, including its arbitrary deadlines for environmental review and restrictions on public comment, would apply to pending construction projects that require Federal approval or Federal permitting.

This amendment, like the RAPID Act, ignores the fact that NEPA is not the problem. According to the Congressional Research Service, which is nonpartisan, project approval delays based on environmental requirements are not caused by NEPA. Rather, CRS reports that these delays are caused by State and local factors like project funding levels, local opposition to a project, a project's complexity, or late changes in the project scope.

This amendment would do nothing to address the underlying problem, and that underlying problem is the lack of funding. So we need to address, Mr. Chairman, the root causes of the delays in the process, not threaten public health and safety by automatically approving projects when agencies fail to meet arbitrary deadlines.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that I utter this saying: Show me the money. When the money is there, projects can start being funded and work can begin. Workers can start working and getting paychecks. In that way, we will reinvigorate this economy. We have got to have--instead of anti-regulatory bills, we need job-creation bills.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order and urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to protect the right of the public to comment on Federal projects under the NEPA review process.

The purpose of my amendment is simple. It protects the right of the public to comment. This amendment would ensure that H.R. 2641, the so- called RAPID Act of 2013, does not restrict the right of any member of the public to comment on construction projects that may have an environmental impact.

Like the administration and more than 20 well-respected environmental groups, I oppose the RAPID Act. This bill threatens public health and safety by putting a thumb on the scales in favor of private sector businesses in the project approval process.

It is yet another antiregulatory measure whose sole purpose is to grease the wheels of the approval process for projects that are environmentally sensitive.

Aside from creating duplicative and costly regulatory requirements that pertain to only certain types of projects, the RAPID Act would also limit the right of the public to comment on these projects.

The bill does that in two ways: First, by reducing opportunities for public input; and, second, by fast-tracking the approval process through arbitrary deadlines.

The NEPA approval process has protected the environment for more than 20 years, Mr. Chairman, and it is designed to be smart from the start.

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 has equal footing as the company that would stand to benefit from that project. My amendment is vital to ensuring that the RAPID Act doesn't shut the public out of this process.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me in ensuring that the RAPID Act does not foreclose public participation.

Accordingly, I urge that this committee make my amendment in order, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Florida, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Just last week, I found myself standing here, managing a rule for two very similar bills. At the time, I thought we were on a merry-go-round, aimlessly moving in useless circles. I will stand by that analogy again today.

When similar bills came before Congress last session, the Senate didn't pass them. The President said he would not sign them, as he has this particular legislation. It seems to me that these measures are a foregone conclusion.

Ultimately, the same tired talking points might be a fun ride for some, but they will never actually take you anywhere. This kind of spinning in circles is a favorite tactic, it seems, of my friends on the other side of the aisle.

For example, this Congress has already taken 109 antienvironmental votes. Last Congress, it was 247. These were votes against clear air, against clean water, and to destroy our planet for future generations.

Under Republican leadership, we have also voted to repeal, as we did a day or so ago, the Affordable Care Act 50 different times, a law that, in many respects, has led to millions of Americans signing up for health insurance that didn't have it before.

And I will continue to ask my colleagues: If you don't like that particular measure, where is yours that would replace it? And apparently, nothing is forthcoming, at least until this time.

Based on the frequency of these quixotic votes, it is obvious that my friends across the aisle have given up or are not interested in governing or addressing any of the issues that are most pressing to this Nation.

Consider, for instance, that there are 2 million Americans relying on Congress to extend unemployment insurance, with close to 200,000 of them being unemployed veterans who have sacrificed time and again for our country.

Last week, I said the following:

We should be spending the House's time on extending

unemployment insurance, working on comprehensive immigration

reform, and raising the minimum wage.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have continued to ignore the plight of middle class and working poor Americans, immigrants hoping for a better life for their families, and denying the undeniable impact of climate change, just to name a few.

We should be raising the minimum wage in order to give millions of hardworking Americans the pay they have earned. Nearly 5 years have passed since the last increase in the Federal minimum wage. Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker makes less than $16,000 per year, which is below the poverty line for a family of two or more.

My friends did not take my suggestions last week, and I doubt they will take them this week. Instead, we are considering two more pointless bills that will go nowhere. One of them, the acronym for it is RAPID. That is correct. Rapidly and fastly, it will go nowhere.

The first of today's bills, H.R. 2641, ignores the fact that, for more than 40 years, the National Environmental Policy Act has provided an effective framework for all types of proposed actions that require Federal approval pursuant to a Federal law, such as the Clean Water Act.

H.R. 2641 is based on the assumption that the NEPA environmental review and permitting process results in project delays.

However, when we considered this measure last Congress, the Congressional Research Service reported that delays in construction project approvals ``are more often tied to local, State, and project- specific factors.'' These factors include ``primarily local/State agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope,'' not to mention the litigation that goes on surrounding these measures.

CRS goes even further, reporting that even most environmental project delays are not the result of NEPA, but actually due to ``laws other than NEPA.'' The measure undermines current regulatory protections and could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing speed over meaningful analysis.

Now, turning to H.R. 2824, the other measure included in today's rule, which, like the 50 times that we voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, my Republican friends have done that, they have also offered 50 rules which are not open rules in spite of the fact that we began this session by the Speaker of the House saying that this would be the most open House that we have had.

H.R. 2824 included in this rule is no more productive than the previous legislation offered. The legislation would overturn a court decision in order to block a buffer requirement designed to prevent damage to waterways from surface coal mining operations. These are protections that President Ronald Reagan put in place.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that over 500 mountains have been destroyed by the practice of mountaintop removal mining, more than 1.2 million acres of forest has been eliminated, and nearly 2,000 miles of streams have been buried or polluted by these mining projects. I wonder what part of knocking a mountaintop off do people not understand as destruction, and if it is to be, that it should be done carefully.

These are protections for all of us in our society. As many as 60,000 additional cases of cancer in central Appalachia are directly linked to mountaintop removal, and more than 700 additional deaths from heart disease occur each year.

Last month, West Virginia University scientists published a study confirming high air pollution levels around mountaintop removal coal mines, suggesting a link to the higher rates of cardiovascular disease, birth defects, and cancer that is seen in these communities.

Instead of addressing these issues, H.R. 2824 would reinstate a George W. Bush administration rule that essentially prohibits the United States Department of the Interior from implementing any protections for streams against mountaintop removal and coal mining.

Let me lift the comment of Judge Charles Haden in a case called Bragg v. Robertson. The judge says:

When valley fills are permitted in intermittent and

perennial streams, they destroy those stream segments. The

normal flow and gradient of the stream is now buried under

millions of cubic yards of excess spoil waste material, an

extremely adverse effect. If there are fish, they cannot

migrate. If there is any life form that cannot acclimate to

life deep in a rubble pile, it is eliminated. No effect on

related environmental values is more adverse than

obliteration. Under a valley fill, the water quality of the

stream becomes zero. Because there is no stream, there is no

water quality.

The Bush rule in '08 was vacated by the District of Columbia District Court on February 20, 2014. The Obama administration started to draft new stream protections upon taking office, into which the minority has conducted a long, fruitless investigation. Indeed, the years of investigation have uncovered no misconduct. The only results of the investigation are wasted time and taxpayer money, sending over 13,500 pages of documents, 25 hours of audio recordings, 19,000 staff hours, and costing the United States Department of the Interior and Office of Surface Mining approximately $1.5 million.

We saw an example yesterday in one of our committees investigating the Internal Revenue Service for something that just simply has not occurred in any partisan fashion. And I can demonstrate that because, if one believes that the IRS only went after conservative organizations within the time period that was being investigated by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, then it was not during that period that my church, Mt. Hermon AME Church in Fort Lauderdale, received the same kind of notices that are being complained about; and what we did was what everybody has every right to do, which is make the necessary appeal, and we were successful in that regard.

All of these partisan witch hunts need to stop. We are a better people than this, and we should be about the business of the people of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, today's measure exists as partisan talking points, bumper sticker talk by my Republican colleagues, rather than serious legislation to move this country forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend from Florida that I have no additional speakers at this time and would be prepared to close. So I reserve the balance of my time if you have additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, one of the sages of America who is often quoted is Will Rogers. One of the things that I paraphrase that he said was: Buy land, because we are not making any more of that. And I use it as an analogy for mountaintop mining, knocking off the tops of these mountains. We ain't making no more mountains. Although I guess we can because in Florida we have what we call trash mountains. So I guess we can build something up, but I doubt very seriously that the quality of it will be of the kind that we see with the mountain ranges of this great America.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are about protecting special interests that happen to be near and dear to some of my friends across the aisle. We are here voting on tired, discredited, and destructive policies that have absolutely no chance of becoming law. This is a failure of leadership by my Republican colleagues and, quite frankly, a waste of time. We should not be considering measures that will help destroy this planet for our children and grandchildren. We need strong environmental protections to ensure that we have clean air, clean water, and clean food.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3546, Mr. Levin's bill to extend emergency unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed across this country for whom it has run out.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad thing that we continue to let people languish without fulfilling our responsibility to them with reference to unemployment insurance. It is a detriment to this Nation, and it serves us no useful purpose to continue delaying this particular effort.

While I do have the floor for a moment, I do wish to address legislation that I hope does come here with reference to our offering assistance to the people in Ukraine who should have an opportunity to make their own determination regarding their future and that we should stand with and, I am sure, are prepared to do so in an effort to assist them.

Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune of being the president of the Parliamentary Assembly for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. During that time, I went to Ukraine on three different occasions, and during that time, I had the good fortune to be the lead monitor after the Orange Revolution; so it is not that I don't have a clear understanding of much that is going on. But what I hope my colleagues here will do is recognize that the Baltics, the Balkans, and the near abroad of Russia and Europe are in need of clarity with reference to matters and not simpleminded, noncomplex answers to very difficult problems that Ukraine is now faced with. It is a nationwide, continuing problem for us.

Mr. Speaker, apparently, we do have some other speaker en route, so I am required to reserve the balance of my time, as I anticipated I might be.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and will. I will close with what I said yesterday. When I was a child, Tennessee Ernie Ford sang a song about coal mining. It was that you load 16 tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.

I have been in Appalachia, as have many of my friends. I went to school in Tennessee, and often had an opportunity to travel to Kentucky and other areas during that period of time, and I have been in West Virginia. I have seen the conditions that many people work in.

I would only hope that they know that there are voices here who believe, just like throughout the rest of this Nation, in spite of the awesomeness of the work that they do in coal mining--and I might add as a footnote, there has been no deterioration in the job market with reference to coal mining--all that is being sought is that coal mining be done in a safe manner, and that the people living in those surroundings have the same kind of quality air, quality water, and quality food that is desperately needed by everybody.

We need look no further than West Virginia and accidents that have occurred there. Nobody wanted that to happen. Indeed, what we saw were corporate dodges of people who had taken advantage of smaller communities. That needs to stop.

I believe my colleagues here want to see to it that we have a situation where those who are working in these environments have an opportunity for safety and have an opportunity for clean air in their regions as well as water and food.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.