[Senate Hearing 118-375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 118-375

                   OVERSIGHT OF THE PERMITTING COUNCIL:
                 IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND COORDINATION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS


                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


                             JULY 10, 2024

                               __________

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov


                       Printed for the use of the
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs







                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

56-402 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024












        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  RICK SCOTT, Florida
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California          ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                   David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
         Christopher J. Mulkins, Director of Homeland Security
            Lena C. Chang, Director of Governmental Affairs
           Chelsea A. Davis, Senior Professional Staff Member
                  James F. Hiebert, Research Assistant
                Dominic S. Thibault, Research Assistant
           William E. Henderson III, Minority Staff Director
              Christina N. Salazar, Minority Chief Counsel
                  Andrew J. Hopkins, Minority Counsel
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                   Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk









                            C O N T E N T S

                                 ------                                
Opening statements:
                                                                   Page
    Senator Peters...............................................     1
    Senator Lankford.............................................     7
    Senator Hawley...............................................    10
    Senator Rosen................................................    15
    Senator Carper...............................................    17
Prepared statements:
    Senator Peters...............................................    23

                                WITNESS
                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2024

Eric Beightel, Executive Director, Federal Permitting Improvement 
  Steering Council...............................................
    Testimony....................................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................    25

                                APPENDIX

Mr. Beightel testimony attachments...............................    39











 
                  OVERSIGHT OF THE PERMITTING COUNCIL:
                IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND COORDINATION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2024

                                     U.S. Senate,  
                           Committee on Homeland Security  
                                  and Governmental Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Garry Peters, 
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Carper, Hassan, 
Rosen, Blumenthal, Ossoff, Lankford, and Hawley.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

    Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the 
Appendix on page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past three years, the Biden Administration and 
Congress have worked together to make a once-in-a-generation 
upgrade to our infrastructure. The investments made through the 
bipartisan infrastructure law (BIL), the Creating Helpful 
Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act (CHIPS and 
Science Act) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), have 
already launched thousands of essential projects all across the 
country.
    Before projects like these get off the ground, they need to 
obtain critical approvals. This process helps to ensure that 
improving our infrastructure does not come at a cost for our 
environment, wildlife, public land, or private property. These 
approvals are generally referred to as permitting, and today's 
hearing gives us a chance to dive more deeply into how this 
process works.
    These landmark new investments give us a chance to do 
something essential; think critically about how we execute 
infrastructure projects, and how we can improve transparency, 
coordination, and accountability in permitting.
    Today, we can take one important step in that work by 
taking a closer look at the work of the Permitting Council. The 
Permitting Council was established almost a decade ago to 
oversee the process by which government agencies issues permits 
on our most expensive projects. It coordinates all 
environmental reviews and authorizations for a wide array of 
projects, including renewable energy, electricity, 
transmission, ports and waterways, and broadband.
    The Permitting Council improves this process in a few key 
ways. It gives stakeholders more transparency by publishing 
approvals and timetables online. It designates a single Federal 
agency that coordinates the permitting process for each 
project, and reduces the burden on project sponsors, including 
State and tribal governments, as well as private companies.
    The Permitting Council also serves as a Federal center for 
permitting excellence, where it makes recommendations to 
agencies on the best practices to improve the permitting 
process. In other words, the Council helps ensure that these 
investments can deliver on the promises to improve our nation's 
infrastructure, create jobs, and transition to a clean energy 
future.
    Today, we will have a chance to hear directly from Eric 
Beightel, the Council's executive director about what Congress 
can do to support his work. His testimony comes at a crucial 
moment as the Permitting Council goes through some big changes. 
In 2022, the Permitting Council received $350 million in the 
Inflation Reduction Act to transfer to other agencies and 
governments to improve permitting.
    These resources will help hire subject matter experts, 
invest in engagement from stakeholders, and purchase 
technologies that are used in environmental reviews. The 
Council also recently established the Tribal Assistance Program 
(TAP) to earmark a portion of funds for tribes. These resources 
are intended to help overcome the barriers that tribes often 
face in engaging in an environmental review process. The 
Permitting Council has made two transfers for tribal assistance 
so far.
    This hearing is an essential opportunity to better 
understand how these funds will be used, how the permitting 
process can continue to improve, and how Congress should 
continue strengthening the Council's purview in the future, and 
I look forward to the discussion.
    It is the practice of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in witnesses. 
Mr. Beightel, if you would please stand and raise your right 
hand? Do you swear that the testimony that you will give before 
this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you, God?
    Mr. Beightel. I do.
    Chairman Peters. You may be seated. Thank you.
    Today's witness, Eric Beightel, is the Executive Director 
of the Permitting Council. Director Beightel has more than 20 
years of environmental and infrastructure experience in both 
the public and the private sector. As a senior environmental 
policy advisor in the Department of Transportation (DOT), he 
helped streamline the permitting process while delivering 
better community outcomes. He's also provided subject matter 
expertise as a policy advisor at the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB).
    In the private sector, Director Beightel has held 
leadership positions and roles at engineering and environmental 
consultancies where he helped guide clients through the Federal 
environmental regulatory landscape. Director Beightel holds a 
Bachelor's degree from the University of Kansas, and a Master 
of Public Policy degree from George Mason University Director.
    Mr. Director, it is great to have you here today, and we 
look forward to your testimony, and look forward to having a 
discussion with you. You may begin with your testimony.

  TESTIMONY OF ERIC BEIGHTEL,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL 
            PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT STEERING COUNCIL

    Mr. Beightel. Thank you, Chair Peters, Ranking Member Paul, 
and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today about the work of the Federal Permitting 
Improvement Steering Council, what we call the Permitting 
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Beightel appears in the Appendix 
on page 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My name is Eric Beightel, and I serve as the Executive 
Director and Chair of the Permitting Council. I came to this 
role with nearly 25 years of experience in the environmental 
review and permitting of large complex infrastructure projects. 
I am honored to testify here today about issues I am passionate 
about, including making our Federal permitting processes more 
effective and transparent, developing critical infrastructure 
efficiently and responsibly, and delivering that infrastructure 
for the good of the American people.
    These same goals of transparency, predictability, and 
accountability were envisioned when Congress created the 
Permitting Council in 2015 through Title 41 of the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41). FAST-41 tasked 
the agency with addressing the concern that the Federal 
permitting process was uncoordinated and lacking transparency, 
leaving important projects mired in avoidable delays.
    To address this concern, the Permitting Council provides 
targeted permitting assistance to projects that seek coverage 
under the FAST-41 program, promoting transparency, 
predictability, and accountability. As Executive Director, I 
lead an agency of 21 staff with an $11 million operating budget 
focused on implementing the FAST-41 statute. I also Chair the 
Permitting Council, an inter-agency body with deputy secretary-
level representation from 13 Federal agencies, the Director of 
the Office Management and Budget, and the Chair of the Council 
on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
    In both of these roles, I work to advance permitting 
excellence by delivering FAST-41-covered projects, and by 
identifying, elevating, and coordinating environmental 
permitting best practices across government. Currently, our 
FAST-41 portfolio includes 27 projects, reflecting a total 
investment of nearly $75 billion from sectors like renewable 
energy, ports and waterways, broadband, electric transmission, 
and others.
    The Permitting Council does not issue any permits or 
approvals. Our work is focused on the process, improving 
efficient coordination between agencies, and also bringing 
those agencies together with industry to improve transparency. 
Together, we work to identify emerging issues and facilitate 
solutions to improve accountability and progress toward permit 
deadlines.
    Our role is simple; we bring transparency to the process by 
developing a permitting timetable, posting that timetable to 
the publicly available permitting dashboard, and tracking 
progress toward all necessary permits for a proposed project. 
That transparency also provides predictability to agencies, 
developers, and the American public by detailing the steps and 
duration for the project to complete the permitting process. We 
also hold agencies and project sponsors accountable, and report 
on agency performance under FAST-41.
    Beyond our project portfolio, the Permitting Council also 
serves as a Federal center for permitting excellence. 
Leveraging lessons learned in our ongoing coordination with our 
Federal partners, we identify, elevate, and promote best 
practices that support permitting excellence for infrastructure 
projects governmentwide.
    With $350 million from the President's Inflation Reduction 
Act, we have been able to expand our efforts by standing up the 
Environmental Review Improvement Fund (ERIF) Assistance 
Program, enabling us to make targeted investments to improve 
the timeliness and efficiency of infrastructure permitting.
    With the ERIF Assistance Program, we have invested nearly 
$165 million to increase capacity at Federal agencies as they 
prepare to process an unprecedented volume of applications 
spurred by the projects enabled through generational 
investments in our infrastructure from the bipartisan 
infrastructure law, IRA, and the CHIPS and Science Act. We have 
invested over $30 million in information technology (IT) that 
will help agencies modernize permitting systems, accelerate 
decisionmaking, and position them for the future.
    We are also supporting tribes as they engage in the 
environmental review process for FAST-41-covered projects. 
Recognizing the resource constraints that many tribes face, we 
established the ERIF Tribal Assistance Program to provide 
funding directly to tribes to enable them to meaningfully 
engage in agency decisionmaking.
    I am dedicated to building on our recent success, and 
delivering on our mission to advance critical infrastructure 
projects and promote permitting excellence. I will accomplish 
this through four key priorities. One, continuing to build a 
strong foundation for the Permitting Council as an agency. Two, 
administering and overseeing investments made through the ERIF 
Assistance Program to measure their effectiveness and inform 
future strategies. Three, track and report on permitting 
performance to measure the success of FAST-41 and better 
communicate its benefits. Four, fostering permitting excellence 
across government by investing in people, tools, and training 
to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
    As we approach 10 years since the creation of the 
Permitting Council and the end of my first year as the 
executive director, we take great pride in the work we have 
accomplished so far. I look forward to continuing to work with 
the Committee to improve the Federal environmental review and 
permitting process for infrastructure projects, and to deliver 
the benefits of infrastructure investments for the American 
people.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Director Beightel.
    Members of this Committee hear a lot of concerns about the 
Federal permitting process on a regular basis, and particularly 
how we try to manage the, some of the goals like protecting the 
environment, but also trying to have a very timely process that 
can work for all of the entities involved.
    My first question for you is, what do you see as the 
biggest challenges that are being faced by agencies right now 
in the permitting process? How would you rank those challenges?
    Mr. Beightel. I think there are a number of challenges that 
agencies face as they look at permitting large infrastructure 
projects. One is sheer capacity and the staffing capacity of 
the agencies to handle the number of studies and the 
applications that are coming in as a result of the investments. 
What we are doing at the Permanent Council, as I mentioned in 
my opening remarks, is that we are investing in staffing 
capacity and resource capacity at the agencies to help them 
address that gap.
    There's also outdated technological systems at the agencies 
that do not avail themselves of a fast and efficient process. 
We have invested in technology to help automate some of those 
processes. Some of these are paper-based systems that can be 
upgraded to online systems, online portals for application to 
automate the review.
    There are things such as automating and increasing 
artificial intelligence (AI) for the review of public comment 
on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. There 
are thousands upon thousands of comments that often come in on 
NEPA documents that take a significant amount of time to look 
at, review, and respond to. There are opportunities to use 
technology to automate that and increase efficiency there.
    There's also just the simple fact that many of our 
underlying environmental statutes are at competing interests. 
They do not always work in concert together toward a common 
goal. They have their own resources that they are protecting. 
The agencies have their own mission that they are trying to 
adhere to.
    What we do at the Permanent Council is bring the agencies 
together with those competing interests to help facilitate the 
conversation to ensure that while there may be different goals 
or outcomes that they are seeking for their individual 
statutes, that we are working toward a common goal to be able 
to deliver these infrastructure projects, and providing an 
overlay of coordination and communication that would not 
otherwise be there.
    Chairman Peters. Certainly, streamlining that whole process 
is essential. But as I mentioned in my question, it's also 
important to ensure that we have high quality environmental 
review as well.
    Now, you talked about a variety of competing legislation or 
policies that are there, but how can we ensure that while we 
are pushing for greater efficiency, which is critical, that we 
also have the highest quality environmental review possible to 
protect our environment?
    Mr. Beightel. Absolutely. I think it's important to just 
recognize that FAST-41 is a procedural statute. It's a 
procedural process that is intended to provide the timeliness 
and predictability of the underlying reviews, but it does not 
influence the reviews. The environmental reviews and permitting 
actions that are undertaken on these projects are not 
accelerated to shortcut any sort of standard procedure. They 
still meet the rigor that is necessary for the project.
    I want to be clear that while there is an intent for us to 
go faster, and the predictability, and a transparency helps to 
ensure that we maintain the timeline, it does not mean that we 
are doing that at the expense of ensuring that these 
environmental reviews are giving full consideration of the 
environmental effects of the projects.
    Chairman Peters. According to latest data, the Permitting 
Council is only currently coordinating 33 projects. Only 37 
more have been completed and coordinated the permitting 
process. I would think we probably agree that these figures are 
far fewer than what we originally envisioned for the Council.
    My question for you is, can you explain why the Permitting 
Council is not involved in coordinating more projects? Second 
question is, what policy changes are necessary to facilitate a 
more significant coordinating role, which is the intent of this 
Council?
    Mr. Beightel. Yes, I appreciate the question, and it is 
definitely my intent as executive director to ensure that we 
are expanding coverage of FAST-41 to as many projects as we 
can.
    I think there are a number of elements that contributed to 
a slower start to the agency when it was first created. In 
FAST-41, there was a sunset clause. There was uncertainty as to 
the future of the agency. The bipartisan infrastructure law 
removed that sunset clause. So, only since 2021 have we been a 
permanent agency. We are still kind of standing up some of the 
fundamental parts of being an agency. That also relates to our 
ability to familiarize the public with the agency and the work 
that we do.
    There is with the uncertainty of the sunset clause, there 
were not as many projects perhaps that came to us with interest 
for coverage. But just in the last year, we have added 12 
projects. We are in conversation with 12 more potential 
projects that are looking to submit applications for FAST-41 
coverage. I think our efforts right now to raise the profile of 
the agency, to share the benefits of the FAST-41 program are 
yielding benefits already.
    As far as policy changes to increase participation in the 
program, there are a couple barriers to entry. One, the cost 
threshold is at $200 million. We have had projects smaller than 
that that have approached us with interest in FAST-41 coverage. 
That is one possibility.
    There are other technical pieces of the legislation that 
exempt certain types of projects. Department of Transportation-
led projects, as well as projects led by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE) that are funded through the Water Resources 
Development Act are also exempted from FAST-41 coverage.
    We have had ports and waterway projects come to us that 
would otherwise be eligible to accept that they have funding 
from the Maritime Administration. They are statutorily exempt. 
We are unable to provide coverage to port projects that would 
otherwise seek coverage from us.
    Chairman Peters. We are working closely right now with your 
staff, as you are well aware, on legislation that will 
strengthen the Permitting Council's ability to coordinate the 
permitting clarify projects, some of the things that you just 
mentioned. Could you talk about how such legislation would help 
your efforts and why it's needed?
    Mr. Beightel. Yes, and I appreciate the question, and I 
really appreciate the opportunity to review the legislation. 
Your team has been remarkably helpful as we have provided our 
technical assistance to help, I think, refine some of the 
proposals. I have not seen the latest legislation, but I know 
that they are very technical fixes.
    FAST-41 as a procedural statute is fairly focused in the 
statutory language and what the authorities of the Council are. 
The tweaks that are being proposed, from what I have seen, are 
going to help us do our job better. I appreciate the 
Committee's interest in our work.
    Chairman Peters. Good. We look forward to continuing to 
work with you and have the Committee work on that.
    Senator Lankford, you are recognized for your questions.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chair, thank you.
    Thank you for being here and for the work that you are 
doing. The challenge that we have is there's really two ways to 
be able to streamline permitting. One is to create a permitting 
streamlining entity, and everything stays the same and we try 
to figure out how to be able to get everybody in the same room, 
figure out how to be able to work out convoluted, contradictory 
statutes and to be able to solve it. The other one is to fix 
the contradictory statutes that are causing the problem in the 
first place.
    Do you see that as part of the mandate that you have at 
this point, to be able to identify where are the conflicting 
statutes and then to be able to report that back to us, or is 
it just a matter of work with what you got?
    Mr. Beightel. I think our role at the Permitting Council is 
to work with the underlying legislation as it exists and 
identify pinch points where the conflict exists. Our projects 
are navigating these different environmental statutes toward 
issuing decisions that deliver these projects.
    Once we have identified those solutions where there are 
conflicts, we identify that as a best practice, elevate that, 
and then share that with agencies to ensure that we do not 
encounter that same issue again, or that we have a strategy in 
place to resolve it if it should emerge.
    Senator Lankford. How do we get those conflicts, those 
pinch points that you're getting so that we can determine how 
to be able to fix those in statute or to be able to come back 
through regulation to different agencies and say, how do we fix 
a regulation that is contradictory?
    Mr. Beightel. Sure. Right now, we provide annual reports to 
Congress on the performance of the Permitting Council. We also 
provide quarterly reports on how the agencies are complying 
with FAST-41. The specific information that you are requesting 
are not in those reports.
    Senator Lankford. Right. That's why I am asking.
    Mr. Beightel. Yes. We would be happy to follow up with you 
to figure out if there is additional information\1\ that would 
be helpful for you as we are looking across the landscape. 
Right now, we do not provide that information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The information referred to by Mr. Beightel appears in the 
Appendix on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Lankford. OK. That information, I think, it would 
be helpful to us. I think at this point Congress has created 
over decades of different laws and statutes that are out there 
that are being implemented, and where there are contradictions 
over decades, people are trying to figure out how to be able to 
work around rather than getting it back to us and saying, hey, 
this is a problem that Congress made, Congress needs to fix it.
    Mr. Beightel. Sure.
    Senator Lankford. I think that would be helpful for 
everybody. I am not trying to put you out of a job because 
there's still plenty of issues that would be dealt with there, 
but it might make the job easier to not have to try to figure 
out how to navigate three things that have conflict with each 
other to be able to solve that.
    But we cannot see that. You see it on a daily basis, and 
it's not right for the American people for that to be kept from 
us, and so that we do not have the opportunity to be able to 
fix it. That would be helpful.
    The categorical exclusions is one of those things that was 
put in years ago. That does not seem to have worked very 
effectively. I know that's under the $200 million mark on it, 
that's smaller, but it's one of many examples that I see of 
attempts to be able to help streamline this process that has 
not been effective in the past. It would be helpful for us to 
be able to get back both the things to you, what you are 
working through already, to be able to review legislation to 
say these things would be helpful. But it would also be helpful 
to be able to get the different details on it.
    Mr. Beightel. Sure.
    Senator Lankford. The Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) recently did a study looking at just the broadband 
implementation and the permitting issues on that. I know you 
are not dealing with that a lot right now, but they set a goal 
to be able to have permitting decisions and such made within 
270 days. That's still a really long time. The painful part is 
they are not making the 270-day even mark. That's the goal to 
be able to be made, but that's not actually making that goal.
    When you look at the permitting issues that you are dealing 
with right now and trying to be able to navigate through what's 
a typical time to be able to get through the permitting process 
of a different project and you can pick small to large.
    Mr. Beightel. That's a question that we get often, Senator, 
and I appreciate the opportunity to kind of provide a little 
context around the work that we do. When you compare timelines 
outside of FAST-41, it is very much kind of an apples to 
oranges because FAST-41 is the only process in government that 
actually tracks a project from start to finish throughout all 
of the environmental reviews and permitting.
    But also inherent with that, is the uniqueness of each 
project and the different issues that each project may have, 
and the different permits and approvals that may be associated 
with each project. We do not have good data yet, but we are 
getting there on the average timeline for FAST-41 projects and 
to be able to report out on the benefits of that. What I would 
say is we are seeing projects move through the process 
efficiently and hitting their marks more for permitting 
timetables. I think we are on the improving upswing here for 
permitting.
    Also, to just pivot back to a point that you made about 
category exclusions and broadband, we have provided significant 
funding to the National Telecommunications and Information 
(NTIA) to support their efforts to do efficient environmental 
reviews and approvals of broadband projects. That is both in 
capacity as well as in IT investments so that they have greater 
automated systems to process the flood of applications that are 
going to result from bid.
    There's also support to U.S. Forest Service for reviewing 
applications on forest service lands, which many of these 
remote areas may cross. We have also provided support to the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to extend a 
program comment to allow for a more efficient process for 
Section 106 review for broadband.
    So, understanding that the target of 270 may not currently 
be met, I have not seen the GAO report, but we are making 
significant efforts to improve that and make sure that we are 
meeting the demands of the program.
    Senator Lankford. OK. September 2023, you all put out a 
proposed rule dealing with mining and that proposed rule that 
has not been finalized yet. Is that set to be finalized soon, 
or do you know a timeline when that'll be finalized?
    Mr. Beightel. We do not have a timeline yet. We are still 
considering the comments received. The way that that process 
will works, we will have to have a vote of the Permitting 
Council, so all the deputy secretaries will take the vote.
    Senator Lankford. I have one of the comments in that. Good 
to be able to do that. One of the comments was coming from me 
that I put in actually in November 2023 asking why the 
narrowing because you seem to narrow it on the mining portion 
to critical minerals, which excludes rare earth, excludes 
gravel, excludes nickel and lots of copper. Lots of other 
minerals that are obviously very important to our national 
security and to our economy were excluded from that initially 
in the proposed rule.
    My question from November 2023, and so my question now is, 
why the narrowing there not looking at national significance, 
or economically significance, or national security significance 
minerals, why that narrowing, and is that a part of the dialog 
at this point?
    Mr. Beightel. It is definitely the part of the dialog now, 
and the reasoning behind the proposed rulemaking when it was 
put out was the administration has really put a laser focus on 
domestic sourcing of critical minerals because of all the 
benefits that you have identified, economic competitiveness, 
national security, and as part of an all-of-government approach 
to really uplift the domestic sourcing of critical minerals.
    The rule was seen as a way to prioritize the effort of the 
agencies toward those projects. Obviously, we received comments 
back from a number of stakeholders who shared similar concerns. 
Many of the concerns were around the narrowing, and we are 
still considering those comments. As I mentioned we do not have 
a timeline at this point for finalizing.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I can make one 
quick comment on this. If we do not have more copper, we are 
not going to do electrification. I know that's not on the 
critical minerals list, but if we are talking about 
electrification, we have to have more copper to be able to do 
that. We have to have more rare earth minerals as well to be 
able to do almost anything in national security or in 
electrification. I do get the critical mineral side, but as far 
as for our economy and our national security, there's a broader 
swathe of minerals that will be important as well and let you 
go through all the review process you have. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
    Senator Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

    Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Beightel--is that how I say your name, by the way?
    Mr. Beightel. It is, yes. Thank you.
    Senator Hawley. OK. Thanks for being here today. Are you 
familiar with the Grain Belt Express?
    Mr. Beightel. I am. Yes, sir.
    Senator Hawley. Tell us about it.
    Mr. Beightel. Grain Belt Express is a transmission line 
crossing Kansas and Missouri. It is currently in the NEPA phase 
with the draft environmental impact statement, I think, 
targeted for toward the end of this year, the beginning of next 
year with the Department of Energy (DOE) as the lead agency. It 
sought FAST-41 coverage from my agency in February of this 
year,
    Senator Hawley. 542 miles of overhead high voltage lines 
that will cut right across the State of Missouri. You have 
designated it, you have given it FAST-41 approval, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Beightel. It is a FAST-41 covered project. Yes.
    Senator Hawley. What will the effect of that be, the FAST-
41 designation?
    Mr. Beightel. FAST-41 is a procedural statute that helps 
bring the agencies who have permitting actions together. It 
establishes a permitting timetable to provide predictability 
and transparency to the public as to what the actions are 
necessary for the project to seek approval and actually get to 
construction.
    We have developed a permitting timetable for that project 
and posted it to the permitting dashboard, and we will maintain 
active project management of the timetable to ensure that we 
are meeting permitting deadlines.
    Senator Hawley. Here's what you said upon approving the 
Grain Belt Express for FAST-41 status. ``Grain Belt Express 
exemplifies the type of transformative transmission projects 
capable of delivering the triple play of affordability, grid 
reliability, and more domestic renewable energy production.''
    Are you aware that the Grain Belt Express is highly 
controversial in the State of Missouri and vociferously opposed 
by farmers in my State?
    Mr. Beightel. I am aware that there is a local opposition 
to the project. Yes.
    Senator Hawley. Yes, to put it mildly. Why is it a good 
idea to go over the heads of the people of Missouri and give 
this expressway, which is being developed by a private company 
that's making probably billions of dollars on it as they take 
farmers' land? Why is that a good idea?
    Mr. Beightel. Senator, we do not have actual discretion for 
projects that seek FAST-41 coverage. It was not a decision on 
my part actually to grant coverage. If a project meets the 
criteria as defined in statute and they seek FAST-41 coverage, 
we are obligated to extend that coverage to the project 
independent of the individual merits of the project.
    Senator Hawley. Don't you think that it's kind of 
incredible that this private company, Invenergy, that is 
responsible now for Greenbelt Express that is making boatloads 
of money on it, that is taking farmers' land in my State 
without compensating them?
    Here's how bad it was Mr. Beightel. In the State of 
Missouri, Invenergy was refusing to negotiate with farmers, 
refusing to give them fair market value using the power of 
imminent domain. I emphasize, this is a private corporation 
that is doing this so bad that the Missouri State Legislature 
had to step in and pass special legislation to require the 
company to compensate farmers fairly for the land that they 
were taking.
    All of this, and the State of Missouri still gets--
originally, we were going to get no benefit from the Grain Belt 
Expressway. Zero. No power was going to flow to Missourians. It 
was going to come across our land, take our farmers' land, give 
the money to this private corporation, and we were going to get 
zilch.
    What strikes me is farmers have opposed this for years. 
Farmers have been trying to get a hearing for years. Farmers 
have been trying to get anybody to listen to their concerns. 
This private corporation, Invenergy, which by the way, has sat 
right where you are sitting and testified about how wonderful 
this program is, although they can never quite remember how 
much money they are going to make on it--it's a lot--they get 
whatever they want when they come to you. Boom, they get their 
designation.
    When they go to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC), they get their designation. It's amazing. Every Federal 
agency is bending over backwards to give this private 
corporation everything they want. And working farmers in my 
State and working people in my State who live on the land, 
maybe have lived on the land for generations, eking out a 
living, they can't get anything. They cannot even get 
compensated for their land. This corporation is making 
billions, and you are telling me there's just nothing you can 
do about it.
    Mr. Beightel. We do not influence the decisionmaking 
process for the project.
    Senator Hawley. There's not a decision at all on your part?
    Mr. Beightel. No.
    Senator Hawley. You are just a rubber stamp.
    Mr. Beightel. We do not approve any projects.
    Mr. Beightel. The FAST-41 you are just saying that that's 
just merely a what? That's just an administrative designation. 
I mean, you do not have anything to do with it?
    Mr. Beightel. It is an administrative designation.
    Senator Hawley. What's the Permitting Council do then? You 
do not review applications when you make the designation? Does 
an algorithm do it?
    Mr. Beightel. If a project meets the criteria for a covered 
project, meaning it is subject to NEPA----
    Senator Hawley. Who reviews whether it meets the covered 
criteria?
    Mr. Beightel. I do.
    Senator Hawley. OK. So, you do make a determination?
    Mr. Beightel. I make a determination that it meets the 
criteria. The minimum criteria is that it has $200 million 
investment subject to NEPA and multiple Federal approvals, that 
project meets that criterion.
    Senator Hawley. There is a decisionmaking process. You are 
part of it. You have approved this. Listen, this is the same 
story that we get every time and that, frankly, farmers and 
workers in my State get every time. It's always that, sorry, 
there's nothing we can do. The corporation can get whatever it 
wants. Want to take the land, fine, go for it. Want to 
designate this as a high transmission zone, fine, go for it. 
FAST-41, absolutely, we would be happy to do it.
    But farmers are told, oh, you have concerns, there's just 
no place for you to be heard. Now, you are telling me that you 
just did not have any discretion in it, you are just a 
functionary. The corporation can just get whatever it wants. 
Maybe that is the law. I doubt it. If it is, it needs to be 
changed.
    But I am just here to tell you on behalf of the people of 
my State, I think it's outrageous that a private corporation 
can take this kind of land. We are talking about a massive 
corridor right across the central part of Missouri. We are 
talking about taking land from farmers whose families it has 
been for generations. These are not corporate farmers, these 
are small family farmers. They live on this land. They do not 
hire lobbyists. They do not appear before your agency, clearly. 
They do not have any voice, obviously, and they are just told 
you have just got to suck it up and take it. I just have a 
problem with that. I just think it's ridiculous.
    Frankly, if you do not have any discretion and your agency 
does not have any discretion, I question why you exist. If you 
really just are rubber stamping whatever comes before you, 
let's just shut down your council and replace you with a 
computer algorithm if you do not have any discretion.
    I just think this is ridiculous. I think the whole thing is 
ridiculous. I think the idea that a private corporation can 
leverage the laws of the United States and every piece of the 
Federal Government in order to get what it wants, and make 
billions off the people of Missouri when they are getting no 
benefit is ridiculous. It is why the people of this country 
hate their government so much and suspect it, and they have 
every reason to do so. I just think the whole thing is 
ridiculous.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
    Can you talk a little bit about the Permitting Council 
strategy and plans for coordinating with State permitting and 
environmental agencies?
    Mr. Beightel. Absolutely. I appreciate the question. We are 
actively engaging with States right now. I see that as untapped 
potential, really, for the Permitting Council. Obviously, 
Federal approvals are necessary for infrastructure projects, 
but there are also going to be State approvals.
    FAST-41 allows us to enter into an agreement with States 
for them to opt in where they would place their State approvals 
onto the Federal permitting dashboard and subject themselves to 
the same transparency and accountability that Federal agencies 
do.
    We are also working with States to identify pipeline of 
projects, and we recently executed a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) with the New Mexico Renewable Energy 
Transmission Authority (RETA) to essentially establish a 
relationship whereby they would look at the projects in their 
portfolio that could qualify for FAST-41, and then direct them 
to us for conversations to see if FAST-41 coverage would be 
appropriate. This is building off of the success that we had 
with the SunZia transmission line in New Mexico.
    We are looking at ways that we can really engage the States 
in more thorough conversations about what projects are within 
their borders that would qualify for FAST-41, but also how we 
can provide the same strategies that we do to the Federal 
Government to State agencies.
    Chairman Peters. You mentioned a number of things. Michigan 
right now is engaged in making historic infrastructure 
investments to reach climate neutrality by 2050. You mentioned 
some efforts that you have been taking to help States, but 
could you be a little more specific as to how the Permitting 
Council might support this investment goal in my home State of 
Michigan?
    Mr. Beightel. Yes. I applaud Michigan for setting such an 
ambitious target. I think, the easiest way for us to be 
supportive is to put projects that are in furtherance of that 
goal on the dashboard. Extend FAST-41 coverage to those 
projects because it's an opt-in program. Those projects would 
have to seek coverage from us, but, I think that's the easiest 
way.
    Second, we have actually had conversations with the 
infrastructure coordinator in Michigan in looking at potential 
projects that could qualify for FAST-41. There are ways, once a 
project comes in and is covered by FAST-41, as I mentioned, 
that opt-in program could be a way for us to help elevate the 
State approvals and help to provide a framework for them to be 
more efficient and transparent.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. What is the Permitting Council 
doing now to promote engagement with tribes? If you give us a 
walk through that a little bit would be appreciated.
    Mr. Beightel. Sure. We recognize the importance that tribes 
play in the consultative process for the environmental review 
and approval of projects. Tribes that are engaged on FAST-41 
projects, we have had, particularly on the East Coast with the 
growth of offshore wind and offshore wind Renewable Energy 
Certificates (REC), reflects the largest proportion of projects 
in our portfolio. There are a number of tribes who are being 
asked to consult on multiple projects at once.
    In response to the demands that we are placing on the 
tribes, we have created a Tribal Assistance Program using the 
Environmental Review Improvement Fund, to provide support 
directly to the tribes to enable them to engage meaningfully in 
these project reviews to ensure that their considerations are 
accounted for in the agency decisionmaking process.
    We also have a dedicated staff person who is our director 
of tribal affairs. For a team of only 21 staff, I think it 
reflects the importance and the significance that we place on 
our engagement with tribes to have a dedicated staff person who 
is working, particularly with the tribes, to raise awareness of 
FAST-41 program, as well as the Tribal Assistance Program.
    We have brought in three tribal broadband projects. With 
the bipartisan infrastructure law, there was the creation of a 
new criteria, a tribal criterion, which allows FAST-41 to cover 
projects that are tribally sponsored and occur on tribal lands. 
With that, we have had, as I mentioned, three tribal broadband 
projects come forward, and we are in conversation with other 
tribes about future projects as well.
    Chairman Peters. That's all good. Is there anything more 
that you think we should be doing to assist tribes?
    Mr. Beightel. Honestly, I think, the more we can provide 
financial assistance to the tribes to encourage and enable 
their active participation in these projects, the better off 
these projects will be incorporating tribal knowledge, and 
their cultural awareness of their lands, and the artifacts that 
may be present.
    An awareness of tribal interests will help us to make these 
projects designed more appropriately, accounting for the tribal 
interests. Ultimately, I think it will be more efficient down 
the road because we will avoid, with early engagement with the 
tribes, issues that may bubble up toward the end, which would 
have a much more significant effect on timeline.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. The Permitting Council is 
charged with holding agencies accountable when they disagree 
about how long it takes to issue a permit. Could you tell the 
Committee about the Permitting Council's work mediating 
disputes between Federal agencies over these permitting 
timetables?
    Mr. Beightel. Yes. I think I mentioned earlier, the 
competing interest of various underlying environmental statutes 
that breeds not necessarily a dispute, but there are different 
objectives for the agencies as they go through their 
environmental permitting process.
    On a day-to-day basis, our infrastructure project advisors 
who are the primary points of contact for these projects, who 
work with their agency partners, will work through those sorts 
of challenges, disputes at a very staff level. Not elevating, 
typically, most of these issues, but every now and then we will 
have a challenge that warrants elevation.
    The benefit of having the deputy secretary-level 
representation on the Permitting Council is that I have a 
direct line to agency leadership who are responsible for these 
permits and are able to talk through whatever these challenges 
are and help to work toward a resolution.
    Because at the end of the day, what we are trying to do is 
deliver the infrastructure projects, and deliver defendable 
decisions that are durable to litigation, as well as 
incorporating all of the agency interests that they reflect.
    Chairman Peters. Do you believe the Council has appropriate 
authorities to coordinate and mediate these permitting 
timetables?
    Mr. Beightel. I do. I think there is a little bit of 
ambiguity in the dispute resolution process itself as it's 
written in statute that could be further clarified, 
potentially.
    But, we do not issue permits, as I mentioned. Ultimately, 
what we are here to do is to make sure that we have a path 
forward with the agencies to ensure that they are getting the 
information that they need, and are able to support their 
decision on a timeline that is workable with the overall 
project timeline.
    I think that we have adequate authority. I think there 
could be greater clarity in the roles of the participants.
    Chairman Peters. Very good.
    Senator Rosen, you are recognized for your questions.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN

    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Peters. Appreciate it, and 
thank you for holding this really important hearing today, and 
appreciate you being here as well.
    I want to talk a little bit about permitting and public 
lands in Nevada, because over 80 percent of Nevada land is 
managed by the Federal Government, the highest percentage I 
believe, in the Nation. That's over 56 million acres of public 
lands.
    It means permitting a project in Nevada, well, frankly, no 
easy task. There are numerous important stakeholders to engage 
with. We have our tribes and conservationists, our sportsmen, 
our ranchers, mining other local community members, city 
governments, all of that. A project should be really 
thoughtfully considered and planned so that resource conflicts 
are minimized from the starts. This means early communication 
and collaboration between stakeholders and permitting agencies. 
It's absolutely key and critical.
    We have made progress in beginning to streamline this 
process through the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which I was 
proud to vote for. But we can do more by allowing agencies to 
work concurrently rather than consecutively through the 
permitting process. Because if one thing goes after the other, 
you just run out of time. You delay the time. The States are 
critically important, so what needs to happen consecutively, we 
should allow that to go on.
    Mr. Beightel, has the Council considered ways to do this 
concurrent work so that we can cut through that red tape and 
get our project--at least get some determination whether they 
are going, not going, what do people have to do. This 
consecutive process just isn't working for us. What's the 
biggest barrier, if you have not done it, to adopting this 
process?
    Mr. Beightel. I appreciate the question. The working 
concurrently rather than consecutively is a fundamental best 
practice for permitting and the 41 agencies to work 
concurrently on permitting reviews and environmental approvals 
for FAST-41-covered projects.
    For the projects that come in for coverage under our 
program, when we create the permitting timetable, we are 
looking at ways that are going to enable these actions to occur 
concurrently so that we are working simultaneously toward a 
common goal of reaching a decision on an agreed upon timeline. 
I think Senator, we are already prioritizing that.
    I would also note that the bipartisan Permitting Reform 
Implementation Rule, the NEPA Phase 2 Rule, that CEQ, just 
finalized, also prioritizes the concurrent review of NEPA and 
permitting actions to enable the more efficient review and 
approval of these projects. I think we are taking strong steps 
in that direction. It will take a little while for it to spread 
fully across government, I suppose, but for the FAST-41 
projects that we have in our portfolio, that is the State of 
practice, and that is what is expected.
    Senator Rosen. This is critically important to all the 
funding that's coming down to Nevada for these critically 
important projects in wind, water, solar, geothermal, critical 
minerals, and even implementing broadband expansion, all of the 
things that we have to do to keep our State growing, thriving 
and competitive. How can Congress empower the Permitting 
Council to really take a more significant role?
    Because you are saying you are directing agencies to do 
this. Is it coming down to our local levels? Are they 
understanding that they have to collaborate and coordinate, and 
where they can, even not just concurrently, maybe they can 
share some of the data. It does not have to even be done twice, 
that it can also reduce the cost of a project?
    Mr. Beightel. No, and I think that that's an important 
question. What the distinction that I would like to draw is 
that we have, under FAST-41, we have our covered projects, and 
we have control or influence over the way that the timetables 
are developed for our covered projects. But there are a vast 
number of projects that are not covered under FAST-41, where we 
have obviously much less influence.
    What we do, however, is to identify those best practices 
that we learn from the covered projects and coordinate with the 
agencies to help them adopt those sorts of strategies, so the--
--
    Senator Rosen. Trying to filter it down to the local level.
    Mr. Beightel. Exactly.
    Senator Rosen. That's what we really need to do. Because 
last week I hosted Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, to 
discuss the barriers of bringing broadband to Northern Nevada. 
We actually are the most mountainous State in the Lower 48, and 
we have to bring it to Northern Nevada and rural parts of our 
State.
    A large part of the conversation we had last week centered 
around challenges of permitting on Federal land. NTIA has 
worked to mitigate delays on the front end by releasing 
permitting templates, environmental screening tools for all the 
applicants, but more needs to be done.
    Can you speak a little bit about how the Permitting Council 
is working with the Department of Commerce (DOC) to ensure 
projects like those funded under the bipartisan infrastructure 
law are able to meet the construction deadlines because the 
permitting process, again, is slowing them out?
    Mr. Beightel. Absolutely. We have been working very closely 
with the NTIA to help them get the resources that they need to 
be able to manage the influx of applications that are going to 
result from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program 
(BEAD). I mentioned earlier, we have provided funding to the 
NTIA to increase staff capacity. It's also to improve 
information technology tools to ensure that they have automated 
systems to process the applications as they come in.
    We have worked with the U.S. Forest Service to help develop 
tools to enable faster, more efficient permitting across forest 
lands. We have also provided funding to Department of Interior 
(DOI) to support broadband teams, to enable them to be more 
efficient. We are looking at additional ways to do programmatic 
reviews under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for broadband 
projects to enable that to be more efficient as well.
    We recognize that there is a high demand for NTIA staff to 
be able to review and approve these broadband projects, and we 
are doing as much as we can to help provide results.
    Senator Rosen. Could you talk about the permitting 
dashboard that you have been working on? I am a former computer 
programmer and systems analyst. I know you have talked about we 
have the permitting dashboard, how that's going to improve the 
efficiency and efficacy of environmental reviews as it makes 
sense for us to invest in this digital streamlining for all the 
stakeholders, everybody that's working on it.
    How has the technology been helpful in the permitting 
process, and where do we need to go to utilize the technology, 
again, to help us move forward faster, whatever the response is 
in this area?
    Mr. Beightel. The dashboard really is our, kind of our 
front porch to the American public. That is where people will 
go to look and identify the projects that are FAST-41-covered. 
It serves multiple purposes. It is not only for us at the 
Permitting Council to illustrate the FAST-41-covered projects, 
but it also is used by the Department of Transportation for 
projects that they are undergoing environmental review. It 
right now is very much a portal for the public to see what is 
happening and less interactive. I think there are upgrades that 
we could make to that tool to make----
    Senator Rosen. Should you use this as a model for other 
agencies? Your permitting dashboard would be a good template as 
we are trying to do this across agencies?
    Mr. Beightel. It absolutely could, or it could be the 
portal for agencies. I think what we are hoping to encourage 
agencies is where there are requirements to post timetables for 
projects, whether they are FAST-41-covered or not, to use the 
dashboard. It already exists.
    Senator Rosen. Yes. I like the dashboard idea. I will be 
glad to submit some more questions for the record.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Rosen. Senator Carper, 
you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

    Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
    Mr. Beightel, we welcome you. I understand your wife 
Hillary's with you. Would you raise your hand, ma'am?
    Mr. Beightel. Yes.
    Senator Carper. All right. I understand you got some 
children here?
    Mr. Beightel. Yes.
    Senator Carper. A daughter, Ainsley. Is that you, Ainsley? 
All right, raise your hand, Ainsley. Ainsley, do you have a 
brother?
    Miss Beightel. Yes.
    Senator Carper. What's his name?
    Miss Beightel. Max.
    Senator Carper. All right. Max, to the max. Ainsley, do you 
have any grandparents here?
    Miss Beightel. Yes.
    Senator Carper. Are these your parents? That's a question 
Hillary--are these your parents?
    Mr. Beightel. Yes.
    Senator Carper. Good. All right. We thank you all for 
coming along. My first question is, and I ask variations of 
this question, but if you try to get people to explain complex 
concepts, I say how would you explain this to your 
grandparents? I am going to say, how would you explain what you 
do to your in-laws?
    Mr. Beightel. The simplest way to explain what we do is 
that we are an agency that provides coordination among the 
various Federal agencies that are responsible for permitting 
big infrastructure projects. What we do is provide 
transparency, and predictability, and accountability to the 
permitting process.
    Many times, people do not understand the various steps that 
go into permitting a big infrastructure project. What we do is 
break it down into the individual steps and the milestones to 
achieve those permits, and provide a timeline for the 
accomplishment of that task. People can look at it and 
understand if it starts on day one, we have until day 365 to 
achieve this outcome.
    Senator Carper. Good. I am looking at your in-laws, and 
thumbs up, thumbs down. What are you thinking? All right. They 
are rolling their eyes. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Beightel. I get that a lot, Senator.
    Senator Carper. Not really. I have just come from the 
Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, which is having a 
hearing on the Key Bridge, the bridge in Baltimore that was 
badly damaged. I have to slip back down there and ask some more 
questions. I see Rebecca Higgins who was a longtime member of 
the Environment Public Works Committee, helped us write big 
parts of the Inflation Reduction Act. Hugely helpful, and 
during my tenure in the committee. Rebecca, it's nice to see, 
see you.
    My question. Last year, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee held, I think, not one, but a couple of hearings on 
permitting, common theme at our hearings, on the importance of 
public engagement. As you may know, we learned that when 
project sponsors understand community concerns early in the 
process, sponsors can often include solutions in the project's 
design.
    Public engagement can build trust, it can increase public 
buy-in, can help resolve issues, can help prevent litigation, 
and ultimately it can save time and money. A question, based on 
your experience, how does community engagement facilitate 
timely completion of reviews and improve permitting outcomes?
    Mr. Beightel. I appreciate that question, Senator. Early 
and meaningful engagement is a kind of foundational piece of 
effective environmental review. The bipartisan Permitting 
Reform Implementation Rule, the NEPA Phase 2 Rule, emphasizes 
early public engagement as part of the NEPA process. What we do 
at the Permitting Council for our FAST-41-covered projects is 
ensure that we are providing transparent information to the 
public about the project and its status in the permitting 
process.
    Ultimately, the earlier you engage with affected 
stakeholders and have meaningful conversations with them to 
identify their concerns, and also potential issues on a 
project, the better you are able to incorporate those concerns 
into project design, into the analysis, to ensure that you are 
identifying alternatives that will not result in avoidable 
impacts that would then trigger further complications down the 
road. The earlier you engage, the sooner you identify the 
issues, the earlier you can resolve them.
    What often happens without early engagement and meaningful 
public involvement is that issues will emerge later in the 
process that you could have identified sooner, that will have a 
much more material effect on the permitting timeline. If you 
can identify early and resolve them early, you can have much 
more predictability. At the end of the day, project sponsors 
are willing to account for a slightly longer timeline if they 
know that it's going to be longer. The unpredictability of 
unexpected delays is what can really cause problems.
    Senator Carper. I am reminded of a hearing that we held 
before the Environment and Public Works Committee. I think it 
was late last year, and the issue of what can we do to ensure 
better outcomes in projects. We had a wide range of witnesses, 
different views. You would not expect them to agree on 
something like this. They all came back in their testimony, 
said we are better off when we hear community concerns at the 
beginning of the process rather than at the end.
    Then let me ask a second question with respect to the 
Inflation Reduction Act funds. As you mentioned in your 
testimony, the Inflation Reduction Act included some $350 
million, with an M, million, the Environmental Review 
Improvement Fund, which we created, as you will recall in the 
FAST-41 Act, oftentimes when Federal agencies have adequate 
resources, permitting is more efficient.
    My question is now, how has the $350 million for the 
Inflation Reduction Act, for the Environmental Review 
Improvement Fund, how has that helped the Permitting Council 
support other Federal agencies, States, and tribes in improving 
permitting reviews? If you could give us a couple of examples, 
please.
    Mr. Beightel. Absolutely. We have provided $165 million to 
Federal agencies to increase capacity at those agencies, 
whether that be hiring full time equivalent (FTEs) at the 
agency, contract support, or other tools, templates that they 
can develop to improve the efficiency and timeliness of the 
environment review permitting process. We have also invested 
$30 million in IT solutions at the agencies to help them build, 
modernize, I should say, their IT infrastructure, to bring it 
into the 21st century, in many cases.
    There is an example that I like to cite is that the U.S. 
Coast Guard (USCG) used to use a Microsoft Word document for 
their bridge permit application. With the investments that we 
have made at the Coast Guard, they are actually making an 
online portal for the bridge application, which will make it 
much more efficient for review and intake of those permitting 
actions.
    We have also provided funds to tribes who are engaged in 
the environmental review and permitting for FAST-41-covered 
projects through our Tribal Assistance Program.
    Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Chair, if I can do a follow-
up question? Mr. Chair please? How is the permitting Council 
using the environmental review improvement funds to promote 
early and meaningful community engagement?
    Mr. Beightel. Our tools that we are investing in at the 
agencies and the resources that we are investing in will enable 
the agencies to do more meaningful outreach. It will make the 
process more transparent for project applicants and the public. 
We are also obviously using our dashboard to provide vital 
information to the public on the status of the projects. Also, 
I mentioned the Tribal Assistance Program, that is all about 
engagement with tribes who are engaged in FAST-41 program.
    Senator Carper. OK, good. Thanks. I have a bunch of other 
questions I have, and I will submit those for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The questions submitted by Senator Carper appears in the 
Appendix on page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I need to get back to my other committee. Thanks, Mr. 
Chair. Thanks for letting jump in here. I want to say to your 
children, again, I love it when folks witnesses bring spouses, 
children, in-laws, and it's a family affair. How old are your 
kids?
    Mr. Beightel. They are 9 and 11.
    Senator Carper. Who's 9, daughter?
    Mr. Beightel. Max.
    Senator Carper. Yes. Son, 11. Let me talk to the two of you 
just for a second. OK. We have as you know, 50 States. He's our 
Chair, he's our leader on this Committee. He's from the State 
of Michigan. I am from the State of Delaware, although I am a 
huge fan of the Detroit Tigers, as he knows.
    Chairman Peters. We are happy about that.
    Senator Carper. Yes. But just for your kids. We have 50 
States. Every State has two U.S. Senators, and our job is to 
help make the rules for the country. That's what we do. We help 
make the rules for the country, and we do not do this by 
ourselves. We have a lot of people helping us who are sitting 
behind us and in the audience as well.
    But that's what we do. Help make the rules for the country. 
We are delighted to have a chance to work with your dad, your 
husband, your son-in-law in this effort. This is important 
stuff. This is important stuff for our country today, and going 
forward.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Carper. Hopefully, they 
will both get extra credit for school today. This is a civics 
lesson. That's very good. That's great.
    Mr. Beightel. I promised them froyo afterwards. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Peters. That's even more important for them, 
clearly.
    My last question for you, sir, is could you just tell us a 
little bit about your vision for balancing the two roles of the 
Permitting Council? First, coordinating specific infrastructure 
projects, but also, how do we improve permitting process 
broadly across the whole Federal Government enterprise? Can you 
give us an idea of that vision and how you see we can be 
helpful?
    Mr. Beightel. Yes. I am passionate about improving the 
overall permitting process for infrastructure. This is 
something that I have spent pretty much my entire career 
working on. When I came into this role, I really embraced the 
idea of the agency as a center for permitting excellence.
    This is something where we have the opportunity to learn 
from the projects that we have that are covered under FAST-41. 
They are, by their nature, very large, very complex and present 
often unique challenges that we can learn from. We are very 
focused on ensuring that we are managing those projects to the 
permitting timetables that they are created.
    But we are also focused on pulling back. After we have 
looked at the inventory of projects that we have and the 
progress that we have made, where were the pinch points. We had 
a question earlier about the pinch points among the various 
Federal pieces of legislation and how there might be competing 
interests.
    How do we learn from the experience that we have on these 
very large, complex projects to develop better strategies, 
better tools, better templates that can be used for other 
projects? We will never have all of the Federal investments 
covered under FAST-41, but what we can do is apply lessons 
learned across government.
    We are very intentional about extracting these lessons 
learned. We have a full unit within the agency that is focused 
on permitting excellence on extracting these lessons learned, 
working with the agencies to develop new strategies, overseeing 
the funds that we are investing through the ERIF Assistance 
Program, to ensure that they are going toward their intended 
purpose and measuring that effectiveness to inform future 
strategy.
    I think, the two roles are separate, in idea and concept, 
but they are very much integrated in action and very 
complimentary so that what we learn to apply for future 
projects outside of FAST-41. But also, those coming in, we are 
able to provide even better-informed technical assistance to 
these projects as they approach us, and we are able to develop 
permitting timetables that are still aggressive and achievable, 
leveraging these lessons learned.
    Chairman Peters. Wonderful. Thank you, Director Beightel. 
Thank you for being here today. Thank you for sharing your 
testimony as well as your expertise.
    Congress has made significant investments in the CHIPS and 
Science Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), 
and the Inflation Reduction Act. Congress has also given the 
Permitting Council the tools and the authorities to improve 
coordination, transparency, and predictability, and the 
permitting process to enable the Federal Government to deliver 
on these important investments.
    I believe that additional legislative reforms could build 
on this progress by clarifying the Council's authorities, as 
well as the scope of projects covered, and increasing 
transparency in the permitting process. I look forward to 
working with the Council. I look forward to working with you 
and my colleagues on these potential reforms in the near 
future.
    Thank you once again for being here. Thank you for bringing 
your family here--and you need to be proud of your dad. He's 
doing a great job. It's good to have you here, and thank you 
for your service to our country.
    The record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days 
until 5 p.m. on July 25, 2024, for the submission of statements 
and questions for the record.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    Chairman Peters. This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               [all]