Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling today's hearing on the environmental streamlining provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century_TEA-21. I think it's fair to say that the whole concept of environmental streamlining_that is making the permit and approval process work more smoothly and effectively, while still ensuring protection of the environment_is one of the more difficult and important challenges of TEA-21. I look forward to hearing our witnesses today report on the progress that the Administration has made in carrying out these important provisions.
As I said, I believe that section 1309, the environmental streamlining provision, is one of the most significant sections of the new law. Because there has been much discussion lately about what section 1309 was intended to achieve, and because there has been a good deal of confusion in that regard as well, I'd like to take a few minutes to set the record straight.
Let me start with what the environmental streamlining provisions were intended to achieve. They were intended to address the concerns raised by many project applicants about delays in project approvals, duplicative efforts, and unnecessary costs. Section 1309 of TEA-21, therefore, directed the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for transportation projects. What we intended was to make NEPA more effective by establishing an integrated review and permitting process and encouraging full and early participation by all relevant agencies. We believed that integrating NEPA early in the project review process would result in more timely project approvals and better project designs, all without jeopardizing the environment.
That is what is reflected in the language of section 1309. The environmental streamlining provisions of TEA-21 reaffirm Congress' commitment to environmental protection_even in the context of highway construction_and the underlying importance of NEPA.
Let me also state what environmental streamlining was not intended to do. Environmental streamlining was not intended to mean a weakening of environmental standards. It was not intended to be the mechanism for transportation departments to trump environmental considerations for narrowly defined social or economic reasons. And it was not intended to be a process to circumvent environmental reviews, limit meaningful analysis of alternatives, or expedite approvals for transportation projects with unacceptable environmental impacts. We intentionally rejected proposals that would limit the ability of federal or state agencies to conduct thorough environmental reviews or that would allow transportation agencies to so narrowly define the need for specific transportation projects as to make a meaningful environmental review impossible.
These principles are critical to the proper implementation of both the letter and the spirit of section 1309.
The Department of Transportation and the Council on Environmental Quality, as well as EPA and other federal agencies, now face a great challenge. They are responsible for making this new streamlined process work, balancing the desire for timely project approvals with the need for ensuring that transportation projects protect our environment. I believe that to achieve that goal, at a minimum, they will have to do several things:
First, DOT must remain committed to work with EPA, CEQ and other federal and state environmental agencies to ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate and early consideration in the decisionmaking process, along with economic and technical considerations.
Second, DOT and state transportation agencies must not be permitted to so narrowly define a statement of purpose and need as to virtually eliminate any meaningful environmental analysis.
Third, environmental agencies must be given adequate time and information to review proposed transportation projects and their alternatives.
Finally, and, most importantly, DOT must recognize that while minimizing project delays is important, preservation of our environment is more important.
With that, I look forward to the testimony of Mr. Conti and Mr. Frampton. I hope they will comment on some of these issues."