Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Chairman, before I entered public service, I practiced environmental law for 15 years in large firms, in a government office, and in my own firm. Through that experience, I learned firsthand of the frustration that many businesses and local governments face when they try to navigate overly complex and underly responsive permit processes.

I also know from experience that time is money, and often a business seeking a permit is paying dearly to hold a property or to service a loan while it waits for that permit to be issued. That is why I have often said that for applicants, ``no'' is the second best answer. Tell us ``no'' or tell us how, but don't string us along.

That is why I appreciate the spirit of the RAPID Act. I don't think it is the perfect answer. Frankly, I don't think it will become law. I am working on some other streamlining strategies that I think are superior and might have the bipartisan support that both would get them through this Chamber and the Senate and get them signed into law by President Obama.

As I told my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, I will vote for the RAPID Act if Congress adopts my amendment and does not pass restrictions on considering the role of greenhouse gasses and climate change on our environment.

My amendment would simply eliminate subsection (k) of the bill, a section that explicitly prohibits any consideration of the social cost of carbon. For too long we have heard that we have to choose between a prosperous economy and a clean environment. San Diegans and people around the country know that is a false choice.

We can and we must provide economic opportunity and clean air and clean water for future generations. That means providing businesses and communities with regulatory certainty to help them plan and invest in the future, and it also means that we use this streamlined process, with tight and reliable deadlines, to analyze the economic, environmental, and social costs of carbon dioxide emissions.

As highlighted in former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's bipartisan Risky Business report, accounting for the social cost of carbon and preparing for climate change is just smart business practice. The costs of carbon include financial losses from sea level rise. If we continue on our current path of carbon emissions, by 2050, between 66 and 106 billion dollars worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide. Eighty-seven percent of all Californians live in coastal counties, and 80 percent of the State's GDP is derived from those counties.

Climate affects energy supply costs. Greenhouse gas-driven changes in temperature, catalyzed by burning fossil fuels, would require us to build new power generation facilities to help cool homes and businesses that Risky Business estimates will cost residential and commercial ratepayers as much as $12 billion a year.

That is $12 billion that could be used by families to put their kids through school or buy a home, or by businesses to hire more employees.

Climate affects the cost of national defense. In 2014, the Pentagon issued a report on the security risks associated with profound changes to global climate and the environment. The report found that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security. That will put additional upward pressure on our already-stressed defense budget.

Climate affects agriculture, water supply, fire preparedness. In California, the largest agriculture producing State in the country, we are in the fourth year of what has been one of the worst droughts in recorded history. Communities across the State are facing water shortages. Dry conditions have extended our fire season to be nearly a year-round concern.

Given the stakes associated with carbon emissions on coastal property, energy, defense, our food supply, fires, and our quality of life, shouldn't we at least understand the long-term costs associated with the project?

This bill could hold the line on responsiveness and provide long-term certainty to businesses without burying our collective heads in the sand on the costs of carbon, one of the main environmental impacts this environmental law must confront. By stripping out subsection (k) and allowing us to consider the real costs of carbon on our economy, my amendment rejects the false choice between a prosperous economy and a healthy climate. We can and we must have both.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I have two responses. One, this is not President Obama's agenda. This is the agenda of a bipartisan report, Risky Business, the Department of Defense, and a number of other people who have recognized this is a real problem we have to confront.

Second, I would say to the gentleman: Let the science work itself out through the process. There is plenty of science that is questioned in the NEPA process. There is no other point at which this body has prevented a discussion of any content except here.

Let the process work it out. I will be with you on your timelines. We will get businesses the certainty that they deserve.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source