2015: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The RAPID Act, Which Modified The Environmental Review Process For Federally Funded Projects, To Prevent Federal Agencies From Considering The Effects Of Climate Change And Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In September 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] federal agencies from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change in National Environmental Policy Act reviews." The underlying bill was H.R. 348, the RAPID Act which modified the environmental review process for federally funded projects. The measure limited the type of alternative projects that could be reviewed. The vote was on the amendment. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 223 to 186. The House later passed the underlying legislation, but it died in the Senate. [House Vote 514, 9/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 705; Congressional Actions, H.R. 348]
Underlying Legislation Would Require A "Lead Agency" With The Primary Jurisdiction To Set A Schedule For Review; Upon Receipt, The Agency Would Have 45 Days To Initiate The Process And Two Years To Complete. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires the 'lead agency' with primary jurisdiction over a project to set a schedule for review and to oversee the preparation of a single environmental review document that will serve to satisfy NEPA review requirements. Upon receiving a project initiation request from a project sponsor (e.g., a state or local unit of government, public-private partnership or private company), the lead agency would have 45 days to initiate the review process and two years to complete the NEPA review. A lead agency could extend the review period by up to 12 months. For projects that require a less rigorous environmental assessment, the lead agency would be required to issue a finding of 'no significant impact' or provide notice that it intends to issue an environmental impact statement within one year. The lead agency could extend this assessment period by up to six months." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15]
Underlying Legislation Limits The Project Alternatives To Those That Are Only Technically And Economically Feasible, The Sponsor's Preferred Alterative And Requires Reviews Of Alternatives To Include Analysis Of Employment. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure limits the scope of project alternatives that may be considered as part of a NEPA review to those that are technically and economically feasible, as well as the project sponsor's preferred alternative. It also requires that reviews of alternatives include an analysis of their potential effect on short- and long-term employment." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Require That A Website Created By The Underlying Bill Detail The Total Number Of Environmental Reviews For Infrastructure Projects And The Total Time And Cost To Conduct Them. In November 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "specif[ied] that a website required under the bill that would make publicly available the status of infrastructure projects that require environmental review would need to include the total number of environmental reviews that were initiated and the total average cost and time to conduct environmental reviews." The underlying bill was a surface transportation reauthorization. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 196 to 225. [House Vote 587, 11/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/3/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 738; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 734; Congressional Actions, H.R. 22]
2015: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The RAPID Act, Which Modified The Environmental Review Process For Federally Funded Projects, To Also Require Alternative Project Reviews To Identify Potential Effects On Low-Income Communities And Communities Of Color. In September 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] alternatives to identify potential effects on low-income communities and communities of color." The underlying bill was H.R. 348, the RAPID Act which modified the environmental review process for federally funded projects. The measure limited the type of alternative projects that could be reviewed. The vote was on the amendment. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 320 to 88. The House later passed the underlying legislation, but it died in the Senate. [House Vote 509, 9/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 700; Congressional Actions, H.R. 348]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Modify The Environmental Review Process For Federally Funded Projects And For Federal Permits For Private Projects In Order To Expedite The Process. In September 2015, Schweikert voted for the Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act, which would have expedited environmental review for federally funded projects. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This bill modifies the environmental review process for federally funded projects and for federal permits for private projects in order to expedite the process by setting deadlines on agency reviews, and by limiting the grounds for civil actions filed against an environmental review or permit approval." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 170. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 518, 9/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 348]
Legislation Would Require A "Lead Agency" With The Primary Jurisdiction To Set A Schedule For Review; Upon Receipt, The Agency Would Have 45 Days To Initiate The Process And Two Years To Complete. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill requires the 'lead agency' with primary jurisdiction over a project to set a schedule for review and to oversee the preparation of a single environmental review document that will serve to satisfy NEPA review requirements. Upon receiving a project initiation request from a project sponsor (e.g., a state or local unit of government, public-private partnership or private company), the lead agency would have 45 days to initiate the review process and two years to complete the NEPA review. A lead agency could extend the review period by up to 12 months. For projects that require a less rigorous environmental assessment, the lead agency would be required to issue a finding of 'no significant impact' or provide notice that it intends to issue an environmental impact statement within one year. The lead agency could extend this assessment period by up to six months." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15]
Legislation Limits The Project Alternatives To Those That Are Only Technically And Economically Feasible, The Sponsor's Preferred Alterative And Requires Reviews Of Alternatives To Include Analysis Of Employment. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure limits the scope of project alternatives that may be considered as part of a NEPA review to those that are technically and economically feasible, as well as the project sponsor's preferred alternative. It also requires that reviews of alternatives include an analysis of their potential effect on short- and long-term employment." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15]
Bill Supporters, Including Republicans, Claim That The Review Process Takes Too Long And Is Overly Cumbersome And Reforming Would Create Jobs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Many contend that the environmental impact review process under NEPA is overly cumbersome, with its often lengthy study and decision-making process. And they say legal challenges to the process can deter breaking ground on a project even after all permits have been approved. A 2008 study found that the average length of time to prepare an environmental impact statement is 3.4 years and gets longer each year. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that these environmental impact statements have become far too lengthy and technical and that litigation, and the mere threat of litigation during the six-year statute of limitations period, deters breaking ground on a project even after all permits have been approved. [...] Supporters, including Republicans and business groups, argue that the bill is essential to create jobs and initiate federal projects more quickly. They argue that the federal environmental review process is too onerous and time-consuming, which leads to delays, skyrocketing project costs and job losses." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15]
Bill Opponents Say The Measure Does Not Take Into Account Each Projects Unique Considerations, Could Damage The Environment And That Supporters Overstates The Possible Job Gains. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the measure, including Democrats and environmental organizations, argue that the bill is yet another attempt to undermine the nation's critical environmental protections. They contend that the bill's modification of the National Environmental Policy Act process could preclude the consideration of project-specific factors and that proponents' claims about the bill's likelihood to create jobs are vastly overstated. The bill, they say, prioritizes speed, one-size-fits-all deadlines and project approval over protecting the public interest and the environment by truncating the deliberative process pursuant to which the environmental consequences of proposed projects are considered, which they say may lead to even more confusion and delays that ultimately hamper economic growth." [Congressional Quarterly, 9/18/15]