Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, my amendment strikes language in the bill that would exempt a number of potentially damaging activities in our national forests from full consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act. Simply put, this sort of language has no place in an appropriations bill.

Our national forests are a true public legacy that sustains both our environment and our economy. They provide clean air, clean water, precious wildlife habitat, and they support approximately 450,000 jobs throughout the country. We should all be coming together to ensure that our forests are healthy and that future generations will be able to enjoy them.

Yet, the language that my amendment proposes to strike could allow many types of damaging activities to occur in our national forests without a full review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, as we call it.

NEPA has a simple premise; you look before you leap. This landmark law gives the public an opportunity to review and comment on actions proposed by the government, adding unique perspectives to the evaluation process that highly specialized, mission-driven agencies might otherwise ignore.

The underlying legislation proposes to make six different activities in our national forests eligible for a categorical exclusion under NEPA, which means a full review would not be conducted and the public would not have the right to be heard.

While some of these activities may be appropriate to consider for a categorical exclusion, they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and should not automatically be eligible for categorical exclusion, as this legislation proposes.

As the Council on Environmental Quality has stated: ``Categorical exclusions are appropriate in many circumstances but should not be relied on if they thwart the purposes of NEPA, compromising the quality and transparency of agency decisionmaking or the opportunity for meaningful public participation.''

I couldn't agree with them more. CEQ was right, and that is exactly what this bill proposes to do.

As an example, the underlying bill proposes to exclude all activities related to reducing hazardous fuel loads from a full NEPA review. This makes little sense. If a hazardous fuel load reduction is not done properly, it could destroy an entire forest. This is exactly the sort of activity that should have a thorough and comprehensive NEPA review.

I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for public participation in government decisionmaking by supporting this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I want to quickly respond to the comments made by my dear friend. We are good friends, and we all do need to work together to protect our great lands in this country, but I would respectfully disagree. I have nothing but the utmost respect for both of my Republican colleagues that I hate disagreeing with, and we agree on the same goal, but I respectfully disagree on your disagreeing on my amendment.

Some of these activities may be appropriate for a categorical exclusion, but that should be decided by the agency on a case-by-case basis, not be dictated by Congress, which you tell us many times, in an appropriations bill.

Make no mistake, mandating the use of categorical exclusions, like this bill proposes, is simply a ruse to make an end run around NEPA and the public process that is so important to it.

We often hear that NEPA is a scapegoat for projects being delayed, and I would not want that to be the case; but GAO and others have found that outside issues, including the complexity of the project, local opposition and, most importantly, funding issues, are almost always the cause of the delays.

We shouldn't be limiting public comments and involvement in government decisions, but, instead, should be enhancing them. This bill does the opposite, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source