[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 207 (Tuesday, December 9, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H5088-H5091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EPERMIT ACT
Mr. CRANK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4503) to improve environmental reviews and authorizations through
the use of interactive, digital, and cloud-based platforms, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4503
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 ``ePermit Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) coordination between Federal, State, and local agencies
and project sponsors is critical to ensuring the timely and
effective completion of environmental reviews and
authorizations, including through the sharing of relevant
information, alignment of environmental review timelines, and
integration of authorizations, while maintaining compliance
with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements;
(2) digital strategies for environmental reviews have
proven to make the community engagement process more
accessible, available, and transparent to all stakeholders,
especially the communities in which new projects are built;
(3) establishing robust data architectures will ensure data
integrity, improve transparency, reduce costs, and enhance
the ability of the Federal Government to serve the public;
(4) Federal agency use of modern software that can track
the full lifecycle of environmental reviews and
authorizations is critical for--
(A) effective project management and process improvement;
(B) enabling workflow automation, transparency, and
tracking; and
(C) simplifying reporting requirements;
[[Page H5089]]
(5) modern business process management systems that track
Federal agency workflows and produce vendor neutral,
interoperable event, task, and other milestone data that can
be shared with other Federal agency systems can reduce costs
and improve performance for Federal agencies responsible for
environmental reviews and authorizations;
(6) case and project management systems--
(A) are essential tools for managing the tasks and
activities associated with environmental reviews and
authorizations; and
(B) provide Federal agencies more data and insight into
such environmental reviews and authorizations;
(7) well-defined business rules can enable process
automation that allows Federal agencies responsible for
environmental reviews or authorizations to expedite routine
tasks and workflows, and improve transparency and accuracy of
project timeline estimates, which in turn can help project
sponsors better plan for application preparation and project
delivery milestones;
(8) taking a standardized, digital-first perspective to
environmental reviews and authorizations at Federal agencies
responsible for environmental reviews or authorizations will
improve document quality, lead to more concise reports,
enable the reuse and accessibility of the data underpinning
Federal agency analyses and decisions, and enable objective,
technology-assisted evaluation of environmental impacts,
analysis, and documentation, and accelerate future
environmental reviews and authorizations;
(9) Federal agencies responsible for environmental reviews
or authorizations, project sponsors, and the public should
have access to up-to-date information on accurate timelines
and the status of environmental reviews and authorizations;
and
(10) allowing for seamless information exchange among
Federal agencies and between Federal agencies and project
sponsors will increase predictability and efficiency of
environmental review and authorization schedules for project
sponsors.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF DATA STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality, in consultation with the Federal
Permitting Improvement Steering Council, the Chief
Information Officers Council, the Office of Management and
Budget, and other relevant stakeholders and Federal agencies,
shall develop, publish, and iteratively update data standards
for the collection and curation of authorization data by
Federal agencies, which shall be used to--
(1) assist with environmental reviews and authorizations;
(2) organize, define, and standardize various concepts,
formats, and protocols that are included in environmental
reviews and authorizations; and
(3) reduce the need for redundant environmental reviews by
creating a shared vocabulary and software systems that will
support vendor neutrality, data interoperability, workflow
automation, and automatic data exchange between Federal
agencies.
(b) Inclusions.--The data standards developed, published,
and iteratively updated under subsection (a) shall include
the following:
(1) A standardized taxonomy that allows Federal agencies to
identify and track data types, relationships, and values.
(2) Comprehensive categories for data, such as--
(A) projects;
(B) processes;
(C) environmental documents;
(D) public comments;
(E) geospatial information;
(F) public engagement events, as applicable by process or
Federal agency;
(G) case events; and
(H) milestones to ensure clarity and uniformity.
SEC. 4. DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOTYPE TOOLS.
The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, in
consultation with the Administrator of General Services, the
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, the Chief
Information Officers Council, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and other relevant stakeholders and
Federal agencies, shall design, test, and build prototype
tools for environmental reviews and authorizations that will
assist Federal agencies in implementing the minimum
functional requirements described in section 5. The Chair of
the Council on Environmental Quality shall prioritize
designing, testing, and building tools under this section
that--
(1) support authorization case or project management
systems that manage tasks, milestones, and activities
associated with environmental reviews and authorizations, and
provide Federal agencies more data and insight into such
reviews and authorizations;
(2) enable--
(A) application submission and tracking portals used by
project sponsors, enabling greater transparency; and
(B) public comment opportunity tracking portals to increase
transparency;
(3) facilitate automated applications, environmental
reviews. and authorizations;
(4) allow data exchange between Federal agency systems; and
(5) accelerate complex environmental reviews.
SEC. 5. PUBLICATION OF GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF DATA
STANDARDS AND MINIMUM FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Publication.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality shall publish guidance for how each
Federal agency responsible for environmental reviews or
authorizations implements--
(1) the data standards published under section 3; and
(2) the following minimum functional requirements:
(A) Application data sharing that enables automated
transfer of relevant environmental review and authorization
data among Federal agencies.
(B) Automated project screening to assist frontline staff
with reviewing project sponsor provided information for
completeness and accuracy and determining if a categorical
exclusion or other general authorization applies to an
action. Automated project screening may not be used by the
Council on Environmental Quality or a Federal agency to
unlawfully restrict any activities on Federal lands.
(C) Public availability of screening criteria and related
decision models.
(D) Automated case or project management tools which
include a repository of relevant data and metadata that
enable advanced tracking, reporting, and optimization to aid
workflows.
(E) Integrated geographic information system analysis tools
which incorporate geospatial data layers and models for each
resource analyzed as part of an environmental review or
authorization for a given study area.
(F) Document management tools that preserve metadata
associated with geospatial analysis, modeling, and other
analytic processes conducted during an environmental review
or authorization, to support future reviews and enable
Artificial Intelligence-assisted analysis of past decisions.
(G) Automated comment compilation and analysis tools,
including services for comment categorization and response
that handle the lifecycle of comment submission, analysis,
categorization and response with Artificial Intelligence
support where appropriate.
(H) Administrative record management tools that maintain
both portable document formats and data-rich repositories
accessible to both machine and human users.
(I) Common or interoperable Federal agency services that
integrate shared services, shared applications, and common
user experiences for Federal agency staff, project sponsors,
and the public.
(b) Inclusions.--The guidance published under this section
shall include the following:
(1) Guidelines for cloud-based storage, data sharing
protocols, and application programming interfaces to enable
the Council on Environmental Quality to work with Federal
agencies to use authorization data to aid Federal agencies in
modernizing their environmental reviews and authorizations
and for iterative development of the authorization portal.
(2) Provisions that support scalability and adaptability of
the minimum requirements to emerging technologies.
SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF DATA STANDARDS AND MINIMUM
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Implementation.--The head of each Federal agency
responsible for environmental reviews or authorizations
shall--
(1) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act--
(A) compare existing Federal agency systems for
environmental reviews and authorizations under their
authority with the data standards published under section 3
and the minimum functional requirements described in section
5(a)(2) and report findings from such comparison to the
Council on Environmental Quality;
(B) assess whether existing Federal agency technological
capabilities are consistent with the data standards published
under section 3 and the minimum functional requirements
described in section 5(a)(2);
(C) submit to the Council on Environmental Quality a report
that estimates the completion dates for implementing the data
standards published under section 3 and the minimum
functional requirements described in section 5(a)(2); and
(D) submit to the Council on Environmental Quality, in
consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, an
implementation plan that--
(i) describes how the Federal agency will implement the
data standards published under section 3 and the minimum
functional requirements described in section 5(a)(2); and
(ii) describes how, to the extent the Federal agency
determines necessary to meet relevant statutory requirements,
the Federal agency will adopt or implement the prototype
tools tested, designed, and built under section 4; and
(2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, begin implementing the data standards published
under section 3 and the minimum functional requirements
described in section 5(a)(2).
(b) Report.--Not less frequently than twice each year, the
Chief Information Officer of each Federal agency, in
consultation with the Chief Environmental Review and
Permitting Officer of each Federal agency, shall submit to
the Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget a report on the
[[Page H5090]]
progress of the Federal agency towards meeting the
requirements of subsection (a).
SEC. 7. UNIFIED INTERAGENCY DATA SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--
(1) Unified interagency data system.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Chair of the Council of Environmental
Quality and the head of each Federal agency responsible for
environmental reviews or authorizations shall iteratively
develop and maintain a unified interagency data system
consisting of interconnected Federal agency systems and
shared services for environmental reviews and authorizations.
(2) Authorization portal.--
(A) In general.--The shared services developed and
maintained under paragraph (1) shall include a common
interactive, digital, cloud-based authorization portal, which
shall--
(i) be designed in a manner consistent with--
(I) the recommendations of the Council on Environmental
Quality included in the study submitted pursuant to section
110 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4336d) titled ``Council on Environmental Quality
Report to Congress on the Potential for Online and Digital
Technologies to Address Delays in Reviews and Improve Public
Accessibility and Transparency under 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)'';
and
(II) the minimum functional requirements described in
section 5(a)(2);
(ii) serve as a platform for tracking and displaying real-
time data on environmental reviews and authorizations made
available through application programming interfaces or other
reporting mechanisms from Federal agency systems that are
compliant with the data standards and data architecture
described in this Act;
(iii) be supported by a decentralized, cross-network
digital infrastructure software that ensures vendor
neutrality and interoperability of data and models across
Federal agencies;
(iv) include a mechanism for the dissemination of relevant
information (such as a notice of intent for public comment,
public meetings, project statuses, or a notice of intent to
begin an environmental review) to local communities, as
applicable;
(v) allow a project sponsor to submit all necessary
documentation for environmental reviews and authorizations in
one unified and secure portal;
(vi) support interactive, digital, and cloud-based tools
enabling applicants to edit documents and collaborate with
relevant Federal agencies in real time;
(vii) support visual features, including video, animation,
geographic information system displays, interactive maps, and
three-dimensional renderings;
(viii) provide for the exchange of information to and from
Federal agency data systems via an application programming
interface or another reporting mechanisms;
(ix) allow for the submission of geospatial data associated
with project location, footprint, and impact;
(x) support automatic documentation of submission and
process timelines; and
(xi) allow the following metrics to be tracked over time--
(I) estimates of achieved efficiencies, such as reductions
in the time between receipt of applications and final
authorization decisions;
(II) comparisons of authorization timelines before and
after the implementation of this Act;
(III) usage of the authorization portal and other
statistics from the Digital Analytics Program;
(IV) metrics on the number of public comments received,
responses provided, and community meetings held;
(V) the number of projects subject to litigation based on
authorization deficiencies or inefficiencies;
(VI) a list of Federal agencies that are not yet fully
compliant with the data standards published under section 3
and the minimum functional requirements described in section
5(a)(2), along with their progress toward compliance; and
(VII) examples or repositories of Federal agency-developed
digital workflows enabled by the implementation of this Act,
including visualizations of data sharing, authorizations and
decision logic, and environmental reviews.
(B) Administrative support.--The Administrator of General
Services shall host the authorization portal as a shared
service for Congress, Federal agencies, and the public.
(C) Accessability.--The authorization portal shall be
accessible to Congress, Federal agencies, and the public,
with appropriate safeguards to protect sensitive or
classified information and information restricted by user
type as appropriate.
(D) Public accessibility.--To the extent practicable and
consistent with other law, the authorization portal shall
provide public access to non-sensitive data, including
authorization timelines, location, project type,
environmental reviews, and mitigation measures.
(E) Congressional access and oversight.--
(i) In general.--The authorization portal shall provide
Congress with direct access to aggregated performance data
and other analytics to enable real-time oversight of Federal
agencies.
(ii) Artificial intelligence support systems and training
materials.--Congress shall have access to the data, fine-
tuning procedures, and prompt configurations specifically
created or adapted for Artificial Intelligence systems used
to support environmental review or authorization activities,
excluding proprietary or general pretraining materials
unrelated to such agency-specific customization.
(iii) Technical assistance.--The Council on Environmental
Quality shall provide to Congress technical assistance upon
request to ensure effective use of the authorization portal
and Artificial Intelligence systems for oversight purposes.
(3) Cybersecurity and compliance considerations.--The
authorization portal shall be designed to promote vendor
neutral interoperability, reduce redundancy, and ensure
compliance and coordination with other laws, including--
(A) section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly
referred to as the Privacy Act of 1974), and subchapter II of
chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code;
(B) the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program
established under section 3608 of title 44, United States
Code; and
(C) the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of
the Department of Homeland Security, for a case in which the
project is in coordination with a Federal agency with
stringent security requirements.
(b) Deadlines.--
(1) Shared services pilot.--Not later than one year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Council on
Environmental Quality shall oversee piloting of shared
services for environmental reviews and authorizations,
including the authorization portal under subsection (a)(2).
(2) Unified system development and implementation.--To the
maximum extent practicable, not later than December 1, 2027,
the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall
develop and implement the unified interagency data system
required under subsection (a)(1).
(c) Report.--Not less frequently than annually, the Chair
of the Council on Environmental Quality, in consultation with
the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, the
Chief Information Officers Council, and other relevant
stakeholders and Federal agencies, shall submit to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report on the Council on Environmental
Quality's progress on developing a unified interagency data
system under subsection (a).
SEC. 8. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS.
Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Council
on Environmental Quality may enter into contracts and other
arrangements for analyses, services, and products with
Federal agencies, private organizations, and businesses, and
make such payments as determined necessary by the Council on
Environmental Quality to carry out the provisions of this
Act.
SEC. 9. CLARIFYING RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the
Council on Environmental Quality or a Federal agency to
impose additional regulatory processes or requirements beyond
those expressly stipulated under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or any other law.
SEC. 10. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
To the extent that a data system, technology, or tool
developed or incorporated into a unified interagency data
system under this Act is not limited by project type, the
data system, technology, or tool shall not have its use be
restricted by project type.
SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Authorization.--The term ``authorization'' means any
license, permit, approval, finding, determination, or other
administrative decision issued by an agency and any
interagency consultation that is required or authorized under
Federal law in order to site, construct, reconstruct, or
commence operations of a project administered by a Federal
agency.
(2) Authorization data.--The term ``authorization data''
means--
(A) any data relevant for a Federal agency to--
(i) determine the effect on the environment of an action
for which an authorization is required by the Federal agency;
and
(ii) determine whether to issue such authorization; and
(B) any community input or public comment on such
determinations.
(3) Data architecture.--The term ``data architecture''
means the design and organization of data systems, including
frameworks for data storage, processing, and exchange.
(4) Data standards.--The term ``data standards'' means
agreed-upon specifications for data formats, structures, and
definitions to ensure consistency and vendor neutral
interoperability.
(5) Environmental review.--The term ``environmental
review'' means any Federal agency procedures or processes
for--
(A) applying a categorical exclusion; or
(B) preparing an environmental assessment, an environmental
impact statement, or another document required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
(6) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' has the
meaning given the term ``agency'' in section 551 of title 5,
United States Code.
[[Page H5091]]
(7) Federal permitting improvement steering council.--The
term ``Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council'' has
the meaning given the term ``Council'' in section 41001 of
the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Crank) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
General Leave
Mr. CRANK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 4503, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4503, the ePermit Act,
which will establish a governmentwide technology strategy to improve
Federal permitting processes and timelines. I thank my colleagues,
Representatives Johnson and Peters, for their strong bipartisan work on
this legislation.
Today's digital landscape for Federal permitting is out of date,
consisting of diverse and isolated systems spread across different
Federal agencies. Generally, these systems are not interoperable or
sufficiently accessible for project sponsors or the general public.
To address these issues, the Trump administration issued a memorandum
titled: ``Updating Permitting Technology for the 21st Century.'' The
Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, subsequently issued a
Permitting Technology Action Plan. The plan sets the foundation for the
seamless exchange of information between agencies, simplified
interactions for applicants, and greater transparency and
predictability on environmental review and permitting schedules for
project sponsors and stakeholders.
The ePermit Act would codify key aspects of CEQ's action plan and
provide Federal agencies with direction on implementation of electronic
permitting systems. It would also instruct CEQ to work with other
agencies to establish a unified interagency data system for
environmental permitting and integrate AI into agencies' permitting
processes.
As the world increasingly adopts new technology solutions to boost
productivity and improve project outcomes, the Federal Government must
do the same or risk being left behind.
The ePermit Act takes a strong step in the right direction by
modernizing Federal permitting technology in a project-agnostic manner.
Again, I thank my colleagues, Representatives Johnson and Peters, for
this commonsense bipartisan bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in
support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the ePermit Act
sponsored by my colleague, Representative Dusty Johnson, and co-led by
Representative Scott Peters.
The ePermit Act will help enhance and deploy technology to improve
permitting processes all across the Federal Government. Perhaps more
importantly, the bill is an example of what can be accomplished with a
bipartisan approach to problem solving and good-faith negotiations.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act directed the Biden administration to
study the possibility of improving digital tools for permitting.
Representatives Johnson and Peters partnered to turn those Biden
administration recommendations into good legislation. The current
administration has helped finalize the bill with further input from
both Democrats and Republicans.
Again, I strongly support this bill, and I hope to do more of this
kind of important bipartisan work in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the lead sponsor of this bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I will admit to being pretty excited that the ePermit
Act is on the floor today, not just because it is my bill but because
America needs this.
For years, both parties have agreed that our permitting system is too
slow. It is too complicated. Frankly, it is too stuck in the past. That
is too bad because, really, the story of America has been in no small
part a history of big ideas and big projects. It is time for us to get
back to that: for more housing, for more broadband, for more critical
infrastructure that will power this American economy for decades to
come.
Too often in the last few years, our permitting process has stood in
the way of that. Here we are, arguably the most technologically
advanced nation in the world. Yet, our agencies have been using
decades-old fragmented systems that simply were not built for the kind
of scale and complexity that we see with modern projects.
It is almost laughable. We have got modern agencies. We have multiple
agencies that will look at the same project using different data
standards, using different approaches, and different systems. Believe
it or not, they are still trading old, outdated, mostly static PDFs.
Perhaps not surprisingly, this creates confusion, delay, and a lack
of transparency for project developers, for communities, for the
public, and for our own Federal agencies. Sometimes they don't even
know with specificity what is going on at a particular stage in the
process.
This bill, the ePermit Act, addresses those problems. Because of this
bill, we will modernize and digitize our permitting process with
uniform data standards and a unified permitting portal so that agencies
can work together and so that the public and communities can see what
is actually happening.
Of course, as the gentlewoman mentioned, we are not starting from
scratch. I was involved when Congress recognized the importance of
these digital solutions in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. She
is right that the Trump administration has prioritized this work, and
we have worked with the administration to bring legislative clarity to
that vision.
Let's be honest. There are many parts of the siting and permitting
process that Republicans and Democrats disagree on, but this is not one
of them. A more efficient and a more transparent permitting system is
bipartisan. Our diverse coalition of cosponsors and supporting
stakeholders shows just that.
I thank Mr. Peters for being a good partner on this legislation. I
thank Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman for their support.
Mr. Speaker, the ePermit Act is a win for builders, a win for
transparency, a win for communities and the public, and a win for
America's competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to join us in letting
America build again.
Ms. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANK. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I
urge my colleagues to support the 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 Colorado (Mr. Crank) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4503, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________