On the recordJuly 12, 2016
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.
