2015: Schweikert Voted Against Excluding Projects From Expedited Environmental Review Schedules That Would Limit Access Or Opportunities For Hunting And Fishing. In September 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "exclude[d] projects that would limit access to or opportunities for hunting or fishing, or that would affect an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act from the bill's provision that would automatically approve projects if the agency has not made a decision within the bill's deadlines." The underling bill was the Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act, which would have "streamline[d] the environmental review process for infrastructure projects." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 187 to 223. [House Vote 512, 9/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/25/15; The Hill, 9/25/15]
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI): Amendment Would Protect Hunting And Fishing Areas. In a floor speech, Rep. Dingell said, "The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA as we frequently shorthand it, is one of our bedrock conservation laws, and it has a simple premise: look before you leap. Its timelines are designed to provide transparency and public participation in government. H.R. 348 would move us in the opposite direction. My amendment would not fix all of the problems with this bill, but it would allow hunters, anglers, and wildlife enthusiasts to continue to enjoy the benefits that NEPA provides. [...] Recently, a plan to improve U.S. 23 in my home State of Michigan was modified to avoid the largest loss of wetlands in our State's history. Not only will this help improve the biodiversity of the region, but it will also preserve that habitat for migratory waterfowl prized by hunters. This land could have been lost and hunters would have had their access reduced if not for the robust comment process that NEPA provides." [Congressional Record, 9/25/15]
Rep. Thomas Marino (R-PA): Amendment Would Remove Consequences For Federal Agencies Delaying Permitting Decisions, Which Is The Purpose Of The Bill. In a floor speech, Rep. Marino said, "one of the linchpins of the RAPID Act is its set of provisions that: deem a permit approved if the permitting agency refuses to meet the bill's reasonable deadlines; and, prohibit a court from overturning a permit approval simply because the permit was deemed approved when deadlines expired before action was taken. If we do not include consequences like these in the bill, how will we ever ensure that recalcitrant, foot-dragging Federal agencies will achieve the bill's goal of streamlined permit decisions? The amendment, however, removes all consequences for agencies' foot-dragging so long as the projects at issue would either limit access to or opportunities for hunting or fishing or impact an endangered or threatened species. That is in the bill. The amendment's sponsor offers no sound reason to do this." [Congressional Record, 9/25/15]