[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 148 (Monday, September 23, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5603-H5606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUILDING CHIPS IN AMERICA ACT OF 2023
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(S. 2228) to amend the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 to clarify the scope of a major
Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with
respect to certain projects relating to the production of
semiconductors, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 2228
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Building Chips in America
Act of 2023''.
SEC. 2. SEMICONDUCTOR PROGRAM.
Title XCIX of division H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15
U.S.C. 4651 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 9902 (15 U.S.C. 4652)--
(A) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections
(i) and (j), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
``(h) Authority Relating to Environmental Review.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the provision by the Secretary of Federal financial
assistance for a project described in this section that
satisfies the requirements under subsection (a)(2)(C)(i) of
this section shall not be considered to be a major Federal
action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (referred to in this subsection as
`NEPA') or an undertaking for the purposes of division A of
subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, if--
``(A) the activity described in the application for that
project has commenced not later than December 31, 2024;
``(B) the Federal financial assistance provided is in the
form of a loan or loan guarantee; or
``(C) the Federal financial assistance provided, excluding
any loan or loan guarantee, comprises not more than 10
percent of the total estimated cost of the project.
``(2) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed as altering whether an activity described in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) is considered
to be a major Federal action under NEPA, or an undertaking
under division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States
Code, for a reason other than that the activity is eligible
for Federal financial assistance provided under this
section.''; and
(2) in section 9909 (15 U.S.C. 4659), by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) Lead Federal Agency and Cooperating Agencies.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `lead
agency' has the meaning given the term in section 111 of NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4336e).
``(2) Option to serve as lead agency.--With respect to a
covered activity that is a major Federal action under NEPA,
and with respect to which the Department of Commerce is
authorized or required by law to issue an authorization or
take action for or relating to that covered activity, the
Department of Commerce shall have the first right to serve as
the lead agency with respect to that covered activity under
NEPA.
``(d) Categorical Exclusions.--
``(1) Establishment of categorical exclusions.--Each of the
following categorical exclusions is established for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology with respect
to a covered activity and, beginning on the date of enactment
of this subsection, is available for use by the Secretary
with respect to a covered activity:
``(A) Categorical exclusion 17.04.d (relating to the
acquisition of machinery and equipment) in the document
entitled `EDA Program to Implement the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and Other Federal Environmental Mandates
As Required' (Directive No. 17.02-2; effective date October
14, 1992).
``(B) Categorical exclusion A9 in Appendix A to subpart D
of part 1021 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, or any
successor regulation.
``(C) Categorical exclusions B1.24, B1.31, B2.5, and B5.1
in Appendix B to subpart D of part 1021 of title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
``(D) The categorical exclusions described in paragraphs
(4) and (13) of section 50.19(b) of title 24, Code of Federal
Regulations, or any successor regulation.
``(E) Categorical exclusion (c)(1) in Appendix B to part
651 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, or any
successor regulation.
``(F) Categorical exclusions A2.3.8 and A2.3.14 in Appendix
B to part 989 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor regulation.
``(2) Additional categorical exclusions.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, each of the following shall be
treated as a category of action categorically excluded from
the requirements relating to environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements under section 1501.4 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation:
``(A) The provision by the Secretary of any Federal
financial assistance for a project described in section 9902,
if the facility that is the subject of the project is on or
adjacent to a site--
``(i) that is owned or leased by the covered entity to
which Federal financial assistance is provided for that
project; and
``(ii) on which, as of the date on which the Secretary
provides that Federal financial assistance, substantially
similar construction, expansion, or modernization is being or
has been carried out, such that the facility would not more
than double existing developed acreage or on-site supporting
infrastructure.
``(B) The provision by the Secretary of Defense of any
Federal financial assistance relating to--
``(i) the creation, expansion, or modernization of one or
more facilities described in the second sentence of section
9903(a)(1); or
``(ii) carrying out section 9903(b), as in effect on the
date of enactment of this subsection.
``(C) Any activity undertaken by the Secretary relating to
carrying out section 9906, as in effect on the date of
enactment of this subsection.
``(e) Incorporation of Prior Planning Decisions.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `prior
studies and decisions' means baseline data, planning
documents, studies, analyses, decisions, and documentation
that a Federal agency has completed for a project (or that
have been completed under the laws and procedures of a State
or Indian Tribe), including for determining the reasonable
range of alternatives for that project.
``(2) Reliance on prior studies and decisions.--In
completing an environmental review under NEPA for a covered
activity, the Secretary may consider and, as appropriate,
rely on or adopt prior studies and decisions, if the
Secretary determines that--
``(A) those prior studies and decisions meet the standards
for an adequate statement, assessment, or determination under
applicable procedures of the Department of Commerce
implementing the requirements of NEPA;
``(B) in the case of prior studies and decisions completed
under the laws and procedures of a State or Indian Tribe,
those laws and procedures are of equal or greater rigor than
those of each applicable Federal law, including NEPA,
implementing procedures of the Department of Commerce; or
``(C) if applicable, the prior studies and decisions are
informed by other analysis or documentation that would have
been prepared if the prior studies and decisions were
prepared by the Secretary under NEPA.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered activity.--The term `covered activity' means
any activity relating to the construction, expansion, or
modernization of a facility, the investment in which is
eligible for Federal financial assistance under section 9902
or 9906.
[[Page H5604]]
``(2) NEPA.--The term `NEPA' means the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
General Leave
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on S. 2228, the bill now under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2228, the Building Chips in
America Act. This is a companion to H.R. 4549, which was introduced in
the House by Representative Kiggans along with Representatives Peters,
Williams, Allred, and McCaul.
The Building Chips in America Act is fundamentally about our
competitiveness and national security.
Semiconductor chips have become essential to the way we live and
work. They power our phones, medical devices, cars, and computers. They
are not only essential to our economic security but our national
security, as well. Yet, the U.S. is dependent on foreign countries for
access to chips.
The Chinese Communist Party has made it clear that it wants to
dominate the globe in key technology areas, and part of their strategy
is to increase China's share of the semiconductor market through both
investment and acquisition.
U.S. technology companies obtain as much as 90 percent of their
semiconductor chips from Taiwan, which is a huge risk given the
geopolitical situation in the region.
When Congress passed the CHIPS for America Act in 2020 and the CHIPS
and Science Act in 2022, the intention was to address this lack of
domestic chip production to make us more competitive, and it is
starting to work. Since we passed these bills, we have seen companies
throughout the supply chain announcing billions of dollars in new
investments in domestic chip manufacturing.
Unfortunately, these projects are being required to undergo a lengthy
National Environmental Policy Act review. These reviews drag on for a
long time. The Council on Environmental Quality reports that it takes
an average of 4\1/2\ years to complete this process. That defeats the
goal of quickly scaling up chips production in the United States.
Not only do NEPA reviews delay ongoing construction, but they also
discourage future investments in chip production. This bill addresses
that issue by streamlining the permit requirements so we can quickly
build up our semiconductor manufacturing. It clarifies that certain
CHIPS projects are not subject to NEPA reviews, and it improves
efficiency by ensuring that the Commerce Department is the lead agency
to carry out NEPA reviews for the projects that are subject to these
requirements.
It also gives Commerce more tools to complete environmental reviews.
Finally, it limits the timeline for court challenges to these
reviews.
In short, it allows Commerce to be flexible in how it promotes growth
while still ensuring environmental protections.
We cannot afford to stunt our own progress in chip manufacturing
because we are following a flawed bureaucratic process.
Mr. Speaker, I also note that addressing environmental permitting is
an issue that extends well beyond chip production. My colleague Bruce
Westerman, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, has championed
the need to comprehensively address NEPA and its unintended
consequences. I appreciate his effort to make NEPA work better for the
American people.
Today's bill is narrower in scope than what Chairman Westerman has
proposed. While it doesn't address NEPA in its entirety, I believe this
is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House who have sponsored
this bill, as well as our Senate counterparts, and I urge everyone to
support this important reform. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2228, the Building Chips in
America Act.
I can't begin to tell you how frustrating it is that we are here
considering a bill that hasn't had a single hearing or the slightest
bit of real scrutiny, but here we are because Speaker Johnson thinks it
is a priority.
Now we need to set the record straight for the sake of our
communities' health and safety and basic common sense.
Let's talk about the history of semiconductor manufacturing for a
second. In 1947, Silicon Valley was the birthplace of the modern
semiconductor, the backbone of our tech industry, but that birth left
behind some pretty deep scars.
Semiconductor manufacturing has never been clean. It has left behind
pollution, toxic waste, and even poisoned workers. Silicon Valley still
holds the record for the most Superfund sites in the country. We are
talking miscarriages, cancer, and entire communities still dealing with
the fallout today. It is serious.
{time} 1745
As we work to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S., we
must do it right this time. We cannot afford to repeat the devastating
mistakes of the past, and we don't need to.
What does this bill want us to do?
It intends to throw all those lessons out the window and bring back
the same toxic mess we saw in Silicon Valley, only bigger.
Are we really going to let this disaster play out again in places
like Palm Bay, Florida; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Clay, New York; or
St. Peters, Missouri?
These are the communities on the line, all home to semiconductor
plants getting funding under the CHIPS and Science Act.
Polluting our communities and putting families in harm's way is a
policy choice. We have cleaned up a lot of the mess in Silicon Valley,
and we have proven that semiconductor manufacturing can be done without
hurting workers or the environment.
Democrats worked to pass the CHIPS and Science Act to ensure that
when we invest in America's future, we do it the right way.
We made sure these investments benefit all Americans, not just a
select few, and we have Secretary Raimondo and the Biden-Harris
administration making sure that taxpayer dollars being spent on this
are stewarded with care.
So far, those investments are already showing results across the
country, and it is just the beginning, but this bill wants to scrap all
that progress.
It would wipe out environmental reviews and public input under the
National Environmental Policy Act for semiconductor facilities.
That means no guarantees, no checks to make sure companies aren't
using our money to harm the very people paying those taxes.
Let me tell you something else: The rush is fake. Republicans keep
saying that environmental red tape is slowing down progress, but that
is just not true.
Secretary Raimondo has testified that things are moving along just
fine. We even made sure the agency got enough funding to handle the
workload.
What we are looking at is a dangerous, pointless bill that doesn't
solve any real problems. In fact, it creates new ones, ones that could
put the health and safety of countless Americans at risk.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with me in
opposing this bill so we can do it the right way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Kiggans) to speak on the bill.
Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.
2228, the Building Chips in America
[[Page H5605]]
Act, the Senate version of bipartisan legislation I introduced last
year to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States.
Last year, 120 Members of Congress signed a letter to House and
Senate leadership urging its inclusion in the National Defense
Authorization Act.
Semiconductors go in everything from cell phones to innovative
technologies that support American energy, powerful new AI tools, key
weapons systems keeping Americans safe at home and abroad, and the list
goes on. Despite this, the U.S. is home to only 10 percent of global
semiconductor production.
Thankfully, the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act authorized nearly $40
billion in grant funding to reshore this critical manufacturing
capability for which we have historically relied almost entirely on
China.
This monumental investment in our domestic industry has spurred
companies up and down the semiconductor supply chain to start bringing
new manufacturing projects to our shores.
However, existing requirements by the National Environmental Policy
Act, NEPA, threaten to delay semiconductor projects already underway
and discourage future investment in domestic semiconductor
manufacturing.
A recent study from Georgetown University found the United States
builds semiconductor fabs at a slower rate than the rest of the world.
To put it simply, we cannot allow Federal bureaucracy to hold up
critical CHIPS Act projects while the Chinese Communist Party spends
billions of dollars to become the world's leading producer of advanced
semiconductors.
One of the greatest national security threats we face today is
China's choke hold on our defense industrial base. We must be able to
produce these components critical to our economy and national security
here on American soil.
Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Silicon Valley with the
House Armed Services Committee. We did a field hearing there, and we
heard time and time again the importance of expediting the process for
building semiconductor chips here domestically. This was an ask from
that defense industry in the Silicon Valley.
The Building Chips in America Act would address this issue by
clarifying how NEPA applies to projects that receive funding from the
CHIPS Act.
This bipartisan bill would ensure these projects can move forward in
a timely fashion while still obtaining all necessary permits and
requiring projects to undergo necessary environmental reviews at the
State and local level.
This approach streamlines our domestic semiconductor manufacturing
without changing the environmental requirements and standards these
projects need to meet.
Mr. Speaker, I represent coastal southeast Virginia, which is one of
the heaviest military congressional districts in the country. We know
how to be good stewards of the environment without sacrificing our
economy or our national security.
If we want to ensure American economic and national security in
today's dangerous world, we must reduce our dangerous reliance on
Chinese supply chains and increase our domestic production of these
critical technologies.
Our military men and women need secure, reliable electronics to carry
out their missions safely. Relying on adversarial nations that directly
seek to undermine our national security is not an option.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and allow our
country to restore chip manufacturing on American soil, which we can do
while maintaining our basic environmental laws. We cannot afford to
lose this race with China.
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2228, the
so-called Building Chips in America Act.
This bill simply should not be coming up under a suspension of the
rules. All three ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction are
adamantly opposed to it.
When the CHIPS and Science Act passed the House in July of 2022, it
passed by a vote of 243-187. All 187 votes against the bill were
Republicans.
In fact, only 24 Republicans voted for the bill, and a lot of them
are no longer here. If Republicans had controlled the House last
Congress, the $52 billion that we invested to ensure semiconductors
were produced here in the United States instead of China simply would
have never become law.
I was one of the leaders who pushed the CHIPS and Science Act through
the House, and so I, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, am
invested in making this program work as intended.
As we created this program, we did so with the intention of ending
our reliance on other countries for microchips that are used in
automobiles, consumer electronics, and washing machines. We did all
this while also making sure we protected the environment.
The CHIPS and Science Act is a success, but we cannot deflect from
that success by once again attacking one of the most important
environmental laws that protects all of our communities from corporate
malfeasance.
I oppose this bill because it would needlessly eliminate
environmental review and public input under the National Environmental
Policy Act, or NEPA, for semiconductor facilities receiving funding
under the CHIPS and Science Act.
Now, this bill simply is not necessary because NEPA review is not a
barrier to moving semiconductor projects forward.
Commerce Secretary Raimondo, who oversees the CHIPS and Science Act,
and who had initially voiced concern about NEPA reviews, acknowledged
at an Energy and Commerce hearing: I can report to you today that we
have made a lot of progress on that, and we are on track to complete
environmental reviews for all these companies before we issue any
awards.
There is simply no need for wholesale exemptions from NEPA reviews,
given the steps that Congress has already taken to increase the speed,
efficiency, and management of permitting for this industry.
We made semiconductor manufacturing eligible for the abbreviated
permitting process under the FAST-41 Act. This ensured that reviews do
not drag out for the most serious environmental impact statements.
We also, under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, eliminated NEPA review
for loans, loan guarantees, or other forms of financial assistance for
similar activities, and we gave the Department of Commerce the ability
to adopt categorical exclusions from other agencies.
This is really, Mr. Speaker, a bill that is a solution in search of a
problem that doesn't exist.
Now Republican leadership is bypassing regular order to ram through
an anti-environment bill that didn't go through any of the committees
here in the House before being rushed to the House floor on the
suspension calendar.
The phenomenal work of the CHIPS Program Office is a cause for
celebration, and the program has produced critical wins for countless
domestic industries worth highlighting.
It is clear that NEPA reviews are not a barrier to moving these
projects forward. Fundamentally, NEPA requires us to look before we
leap, which is just common sense, and failing to do so could create
many new problems for our environment.
My colleague mentioned the Superfund sites in Silicon Valley. Do we
want those again?
This affects our water supply, our worker safety, and our
communities, and ignoring these impacts is not going to make them
disappear, Mr. Speaker.
I thank Ranking Member Lofgren from the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology and Ranking Member Grijalva from the Natural Resources
Committee for joining me in leading the effort to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no''.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, the chairman of the House Rules Committee (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of S. 2228, the Building
Chips in America Act. Last week, Members of the Texas delegation sent a
letter to our leadership requesting that we prioritize this crucial
piece of legislation.
I certainly thank, of course, Chairman Lucas as well as Speaker
Johnson
[[Page H5606]]
and Majority Leader Scalise for considering bringing the Building Chips
in America Act to the floor this week.
We have heard over and over how semiconductors are necessary for some
of the most vital technology we have today.
Let's also be clear. The NEPA process is valuable. The environmental
impact assessments and reviews that are conducted in this country are a
pragmatic symbol of the American people's commitment to environmental
conservatism and land management. However, efficiency is sometimes
lacking.
My friend, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
Mr. Pallone, the gentleman from New Jersey, said this is a solution in
search of a problem. Hardly. Hardly.
NEPA's red tape means that many semiconductor projects are delayed,
manufacturers are becoming discouraged in developing domestic
manufacturing projects, and certainly that is evident in my home State
of Texas.
This legislation is important to Texas, and we have remained at the
forefront of a national resurgence in high-tech manufacturing.
Streamlining the NEPA process will help companies in the
semiconductor industry bring great economic prosperity to our State.
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2228, the Building
Chips in America Act. Two years ago, Congress wisely passed the CHIPS
and Science Act, bringing about a resurgence in domestic manufacturing,
particularly in my home State of Arizona.
Some of the world's leading semiconductor companies have invested
hundreds of billions of dollars in Arizona to build new fabrication
plants, or fabs, creating thousands and thousands of high-wage jobs.
Many of these projects have already broken ground. If you drive
around my district in Arizona, cranes dot the skyline, the clearest
sign of America's advanced manufacturing boom.
In North Phoenix, TSMC will soon begin producing the world's most
advanced semiconductors by the end of this decade.
In Chandler, Intel is building its largest manufacturing complex,
which opens next year. It will churn out semiconductor chips at a time
when America needs a secure supply more than ever. It is critical for
our national defense.
Make no mistake. These projects are being constructed in compliance
with Federal, State, and local environmental regulations, protecting
Arizonans' clean air and water.
In fact, we have worked in partnership with semiconductor giants to
invest in water recycling and reclamation projects in record numbers.
Because these projects are benefiting from the CHIPS and Science Act,
many companies must now, for the first time, complete a secondary
Federal and environmental review that could slow or even stop
construction for months or years.
This bipartisan bill, led by Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona on the
Senate side, would streamline that review process to ensure these fabs
can be built on time so we don't lose a single day in the global
semiconductor arms race.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 2228.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on S. 2228, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Building Chips in America Act is pragmatic
legislation that ensures we aren't sacrificing our growth in chip
production because of unwieldy permitting processes.
The changes we are making here today won't compromise the laws that
protect our clean air and water, but they do allow us to move forward
with semiconductor manufacturing. That is why this bill has strong
bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 2228.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________