American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the bill we are looking at today represents a massive Federal investment. It will provide Federal funds for a host of activities at State and local levels. This would be a new experience for many of our States.

The requirements set forth for Federal involvement have caused some State and local officials to take pause. But in the West, we have already learned the lessons of Federal involvement. In my State of Wyoming, we deal with the Federal Government in the day-to-day operations of our land, of our businesses and of our communities. More than 45 percent of the land in Wyoming is federally owned. The Federal Government has introduced major predators into our landscape. The Federal Government controls most of our dams, lakes, and reservoirs. The Federal Government manages the irrigation and grazing for agriculture production. We depend on Federal managers to access Federal lands for hunting and fishing. Living with this heavy Federal involvement in Wyoming, we struggle every day to cut red tape and to get work done. I urge the Members of the Senate to seriously consider the experience of the people of Wyoming.

We in Congress need to face the realities of our Federal system. Bureaucratic delays impact everyday life in Wyoming. Unless we seriously consider legislative alternatives, delays will affect many of the projects proposed for funding through this piece of legislation we are considering. The vast majority of the projects proposed for this funding are subject to environmental laws. These laws provide for measured, thoughtful decisionmaking. They allow public involvement in our Government, but they are not built for speed. Virtually every school to be built, every road, and every bridge in this legislation would require documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act, called NEPA. From my Wyoming experience, NEPA reviews can take years--not weeks, not months but years. Even after NEPA documentation is finalized, activist groups can file appeals and litigation and hold up projects for many years to come.

To address this pressing need, I am proposing an amendment today numbered 326, along with several colleagues, to provide for a streamlined process of approval. The amendment would require that NEPA be completed in 9 months. We require that administrative appeals be combined for expedient consideration. Once the administrative remedies are exhausted, judicial review is available in the Federal Court of Appeals right here in Washington, DC. This provides a single, clear system to review decisions and provide a fair ruling.

A host of experts have called for Congress to face the reality of NEPA during this stimulus package debate. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in their January 28 letter to the Senate, gave recommendations for ``actions that could accelerate spending.'' NEPA is the very first point they offered. CBO wrote that Congress should consider ``waiving requirements for environmental and judicial reviews.'' CBO is not alone. Governor Schwarzenegger of California, a very moderate Governor, listed waiving NEPA as a priority for his State to succeed with stimulus funding. He wrote that Congress should ``waive or greatly streamline NEPA requirements,'' in order to speed delivery of the projects. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest group of businesses in the Nation, called for NEPA reform. These are exactly the people we expect to lift us out of the recession. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce feels that this amendment is necessary for the stimulus package to succeed. The knowledgeable, moderate, hard working people of America are calling on Congress to make this improvement to the stimulus legislation. In fact, some of them are calling for us to go further than this amendment would go.

This amendment is not a waiver of NEPA responsibility. Rather, it requires that NEPA documentation be timely and effective. If bureaucratic delays stand in the way of project completion, it provides for the project to go forward. This amendment is a practical middle ground. I urge Members of the Senate to support it.

This amendment will make the aims of this legislation possible. The Federal Government should not stand in the way of people trying to help out and to help us out of the recession. Community projects should be reviewed quickly and allowed to go forward after a reasonable time. This amendment would prevent bureaucratic delays. Approval of the amendment will allow our transportation, our public land management, and construction goals to be met on time. If the aim of H.R. 1 is to provide quick, efficient funding for projects that will stimulate our economy, we must approve this amendment. If projects are truly shovel ready, if our partners in the agencies, States and local governments have done their homework, they won't depend on this amendment. But by approving this amendment, we will guarantee that no Federal bureaucrat sitting in Washington can waste time and money on endless paperwork. Frankly, I believe this kind of requirement should be available to all of us who struggle with bureaucratic delays in the Federal Government.

I will explain a few of the difficulties we face in Wyoming with Federal delays and bureaucratic red tape. I am sure my fellow cosponsors of the amendment have similar stories. I hope my colleagues will heed our cautionary tales.

In the Medicine Bow National Forest, we have watched millions of acres of forest die year after year. Bark beetles have infested our pine trees. They spread quickly and leave behind stands of dense, dry timber waiting to burn. We see entire mountain ranges of standing dead timber. This is a health problem, a safety problem for our communities in and around the forest. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of moving quickly to reduce wildfire risk and remove the hazardous fuels. Yet it takes nearly 2 years to plan and review a single project, 2 years before we can even begin work on the projects. Most of that time is consumed by analysis and review in order to reach NEPA compliance. This is a clear example where red tape and bureaucratic requirements are failing the people of Wyoming. These same policies will fail the people of America if we do not include a process of expedited NEPA regulations in this legislation.

The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes also face delays due to red tape that the Federal Government imposes on transactions involving Indian lands. Almost every proposal to lease or develop the surface minerals, timber, water, and other resources located on Indian land is subject to approval by a Federal official. However, that official's decision cannot be made until the NEPA review and documentation requirements have been fulfilled. The lengthy paperwork must be completed regardless of what the Indian tribe or the landowner wants and regardless of the tribe or the landowner's participation in negotiating the transaction. Those review and documentation requirements take time, even when the process goes smoothly. If there is a court challenge to the NEPA review, the process can be dragged on for many months or even years. The challenge of complying with NEPA has its own impacts on the human environment in the case of Indian lands. It makes Indian lands less attractive to prospective investors and developers, and it can lead to substantial delays and considerable uncertainty.

I am not saying that NEPA has no benefits and that it is all bad. But as we consider this stimulus bill, we in Congress must be honest with ourselves. We must face the fact that NEPA compliance may create significant delays in the spending contemplated by this bill. That should not happen. We should make it clear that NEPA will not be available as a mechanism to block or substantially delay a project authorized by this legislation.

With that in mind, I hope Members of the Senate will support this amendment. We know in Wyoming that delay and red tape are part of every Federal project. If Washington is serious about implementing massive Federal investment in local communities, we must ask ourselves the same questions being asked by our constituents: How do we make the process effective? How do we harness the most resources in the least amount of time? How can we best serve the people?

If you consider the on-the-ground realities of Federal projects, you see the necessity of this amendment. We need to put an end to bureaucratic delays. We must allow our communities to move forward with projects in a reasonable timeframe. We should allow the public to dispute Federal decisions, but we should limit unending lawsuits and delays. These are improvements that will vastly improve the effectiveness of Federal funding and allow truly shovel-ready projects to proceed without delay.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source