[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 214 (Thursday, December 18, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H6033-H6044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    STANDARDIZING PERMITTING AND EXPEDITING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Utah (Ms. Maloy).

[[Page H6034]]

  

  Ms. MALOY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4776, 
the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act, 
known as the SPEED Act, introduced by my colleague from Arkansas, 
Chairman Westerman.
  Federal permitting under NEPA has strangled economic development and 
delayed critical projects. What should take months takes years, and 
what should be straightforward becomes bureaucratic maze.
  The core purpose of this bill is to restore NEPA to its original 
purpose as a procedural statute intended to ensure agencies look at 
alternatives and focus on real proximate environmental effects rather 
than speculative, politically motivated hypotheticals.
  The key reforms that will help bring that about are that it prevents 
completed environmental reports from being undone without a court 
order. It creates litigation timelines and requires substantive public 
comment in order to establish standing for litigation.
  The way NEPA is being implemented now and has been implemented for 
the last several years wastes taxpayer time and money. What was 
intended to make sure Federal agencies are being thoughtful and looking 
at multiple alternatives before they make important decisions on behalf 
of the American people has turned into a bureaucratic boondoggle that 
isn't serving the American people.
  These reforms are especially critical for rural States with a large 
Federal footprint like Utah. It rebalances the scales in favor of local 
voices, working families, and economic opportunities.
  These changes help all Americans. All Americans are going to be 
benefited by upgraded infrastructure, increased energy production, and 
less wasted time and money.
  This isn't about lowering environmental standards, but it is about 
eliminating redundancy and bureaucratic paralysis. It represents 
reforms Americans have been demanding: practical solutions that cut red 
tape while maintaining environmental protections that we all 
appreciate.
  It is time for some predictability, consistency, and efficiency in 
government decisions. I thank Chairman Westerman for meeting the need 
of our time which is a need for speed.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation. The time for action is now, and we must give the American 
people the effective government that we all deserve.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hurd).
  Mr. HURD of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support the SPEED Act because 
it fixes something that people back home understand instinctively: It 
takes too long to build anything in this country--water infrastructure, 
roads, power lines, housing, or energy projects. When it takes just a 
decade to get a permit, families pay more, and America falls behind.
  NEPA was meant to ensure that agencies look before they act, not to 
function as a litigation strategy to stop reasonable projects. Today, 
it too often stalls projects and advantages competitors like China.
  The SPEED Act restores common sense. It focuses on real impacts, ends 
endless delays, and brings predictability back to permitting. Just as 
important for me as chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular 
Affairs, it respects Tribal reviews and was developed with Tribal 
consultation to ensure that NEPA does not block Tribal economic 
development.
  This isn't about weakening environmental protections. It is about 
ending unreasonable delays so America can build again and so we can 
lower energy costs, build reliable infrastructure, and compete 
globally.
  The SPEED Act is balanced reform, and it is long overdue. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard over and over again in this debate that 
this bill is not about lowering environmental standards. This is 
another one of those rather remarkable inversions, when you actually 
look at what the bill does.
  Entire classes of projects are simply eliminated from environmental 
review. Entire classes of impacts no longer count in an environmental 
review under this proposed legislation. Certain types of comments that 
allow people to take part in the public review process and potentially 
challenge a project are no longer qualifying for them to be part of the 
public review and legal challenge process. If that is not lowering 
environmental standards, I don't know what is.
  Another aspect of this bill should be considered specifically: 
allowing broad exemptions for grants, loans, and other financial 
assistance, which this bill does. It means that large, federally backed 
projects could avoid triggering a NEPA review, even when those impacts 
could be very significant.
  This includes projects like many Federal highways, which were one of 
the original reasons that NEPA was passed, because they often ran right 
through disadvantaged communities. Those communities didn't even know 
about the proposed projects, let alone have the ability to require 
consideration of environmental impacts.
  If you just take a look at this image here, this is what happens to 
transportation projects without NEPA. When we hear that this is not 
about lowering environmental standards, I think it is important to 
bring it back to the reality of what this bill would do. This is what 
this bill would do: no environmental review process at all for many of 
these projects.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
  Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
modernizing our permitting system through the SPEED Act.
  While other nations are rushing to win the AI race, build out energy 
generation, and modernize infrastructure, America is stuck in the 20th 
century.
  Our Nation's permitting process has been corrupted, morphing from 
what NEPA was crafted to do into a leviathan designed to do what 
activists and courts want it to do, transforming from a procedural 
statute into a hammer to block development and innovation.
  The resulting lawlessness in the permitting system finally culminated 
in the Seven County Supreme Court decision, which provided much-needed 
relief. Simply stated, and as the Court found, there is no reason a 
rail project should fail because project opponents don't like the 
commodity that will be shipped on that rail line.
  An examination of other lawsuits filed under NEPA confirms the 
frivolous nature of many of them. In the last decade, circuit courts 
witnessed a 56 percent increase in NEPA appeals. NGOs instigated over 
70 percent of these challenges, with just 10 organizations filing many 
of those cases. In these cases, agencies won roughly 80 percent of the 
challenges to both environmental assessments and environmental impact 
statements.
  In other words, agencies are seldom faulted for inadequate 
environmental review, yet NGOs capitalize on the 6-year statute of 
limitations to file a lawsuit, slow projects down, increase costs, and 
finance their organizations through EAJA funds.
  In recognition of this reality, and in line with the Seven County 
decision, this bill clarifies the role of the court over this purely 
procedural statute, and places shot clocks on when lawsuits must be 
filed and decided.
  The SPEED Act is project agnostic, which I believe is well reflected 
in its bipartisan nature, and I am proud to be one of its cosponsors.
  Permitting impacts every aspect of our economy. When the system is 
broken, it is broken for everyone. The SPEED Act will provide the 
certainty that the system currently lacks and which American industries 
need.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Westerman for his strong leadership on 
this crucial piece of legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we hear it over and over again from the other side: 
NEPA should just be a purely procedural law.

[[Page H6035]]

Well, a lot of really important things are procedural--MRIs, X-rays, 
any number of things. Those are procedures, but you don't turn the 
power off and reduce that very important procedure to a meaningless 
exercise. That is what this legislation would do.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. 
Lee).
  Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, in Nevada, the Sun shines more than 300 
days a year, and solar is among the cheapest and most abundant sources 
of energy, not only in my State but across the country. That is why I 
am leading 30 of my colleagues in championing the most supported 
amendment to the SPEED Act by far to save solar and wind from this 
administration's war on clean energy.
  On July 15, President Trump's Interior Department actively chose to 
wrap the biggest piece of permitting red tape around the neck of the 
renewable energy sector that we have ever seen, directing the Interior 
Secretary to personally sign off on every permit to solar and wind 
energy.
  In just one example from my State, what would have been the largest 
solar facility in North America, the administration is making that 
project jump through 69 hoops seven times. That is the opposite of 
efficient.
  Even my State's Republican Governor has said that these actions have 
``not only stopped solar development on Federal lands in Nevada, but 
also on private land where Federal approvals . . . are required.''
  More broadly, this administration's attacks on America's solar and 
storage industry are threatening over 500 projects that could be 
powering 16 million homes. Together, these projects represent half of 
all new planned capacity in the United States.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to the committee.
  If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with my 
important amendment to this bill.
  Quite simply, my amendment to the SPEED Act would put an end to this 
nonsensical political tit for tat and ensure equal treatment for all 
energy sources as part of the DOI permitting process moving forward.
  If we are going to bring down energy bills for everyone, the path 
forward is obvious. Solar and wind are the clear cheapest choice.
  Republicans in Congress are more interested in getting retribution 
for their corporate donors than bringing down the costs for American 
families. Let's be clear: They know this isn't right. Even my 
colleagues who represent States like Texas and Arizona, where energy 
projects are being held up, are refusing to speak up. They would rather 
let this reckless administration put its finger on the scale and jack 
up prices for their constituents than stand up to this President.
  Already, families across the country are seeing their electric bills 
increase by an average of 13 percent. In States like Florida, that is 
an average annual increase of about $400.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Stutzman). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada.

                              {time}  1010

  Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, every day, more Americans are concerned 
about huge data centers causing their electric prices to spiral even 
further out of control. It doesn't have to be this way.
  We need to provide real permitting certainty and permitting fairness 
and let investors, not Washington, pick winners and losers. Under this 
approach, Americans paying their electric bills each month are the ones 
who are really losing.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.

       Ms. Lee of Nevada moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4776 to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 5. PARITY.

       (a) Requirement for Parity.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall ensure that no category or specific type of energy 
     project on Federal land or which requires Federal review is 
     subject to more arbitrarily restrictive or burdensome 
     procedural requirements than other types of energy projects 
     regarding the processing and denial of applications, 
     authorizations, or related approvals, including--
       (1) requirements for elevated or discretionary review by 
     the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, other political appointees, 
     or career employees;
       (2) additional documentation or review for a category or 
     specific type of energy project not required for all other 
     types of energy projects;
       (3) withholding, delaying, or reversing decisions by local, 
     State, or regional entities for a category or specific type 
     of energy project for reasons not applied to all other types 
     of energy projects; and
       (4) denial or delay of routine administrative 
     authorizations, such as testing permits, cost recovery 
     agreements, or notices to proceed once all criteria have been 
     met for approval, based on underlying technology.
       (b) Policy Review.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall--
       (1) review all applicable regulations, guidance documents, 
     policy manuals, departmental directives, Secretarial orders, 
     and other procedures regarding energy projects; and
       (2) identify any provision of such regulations, documents, 
     manuals, directives, orders, and procedures not otherwise 
     required in statute that do not comply with the requirements 
     in subsection (a).
       (c) Rescission.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and without delay, the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall rescind and amend as necessary any 
     provision identified under subsection (b)(2).

  Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
voting for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Crank).
  Mr. CRANK. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the SPEED Act.
  America's permitting system is broken. Today, an estimated $1.5 
trillion in economic value is tied up in projects waiting for approval, 
costing our economy roughly $140 billion every year in lost growth.
  Instead of encouraging responsible development, our system too often 
rewards bad actors driven by ideology rather than legitimate concerns.
  Endless litigation has become the single biggest obstacle to building 
energy, infrastructure, and critical projects in this country. At the 
same time, energy demand is projected to grow by 50 percent by 2050.
  The question is simple: Will we rise to meet that demand? We won't, 
not with our current permitting process.
  The SPEED Act brings commonsense reform. It limits judicial review 
under NEPA to 150 days. It directs stakeholders to engage during the 
public comment process and tightens the scope of review, so agencies 
take a hard look at expected impacts.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. CRANK. The bill allows America to build again, produce energy 
again, and stop being held hostage by litigious groups content to see 
jobs and investment move overseas. Permitting reform unleashes American 
energy and the American economy.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the SPEED Act.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I am glad to hear the gentleman's concern for projects 
that are awaiting approval, but for the past year, we have seen huge 
projects that were already approved that were under construction.
  In one case, the Revolution Wind project in Rhode Island was 80 
percent complete, with thousands of jobs and some of the cheapest 
electricity that New England would see to bring down these soaring 
utility bills, and President Trump stepped in and stopped it. They had 
to get a court to release the hostage, to allow this already approved 
project to simply move forward. I am always grateful to hear concern 
for projects awaiting approval.
  What this bill does, though, unfortunately, is nothing at all to end 
the crazy war on clean energy that is killing off projects that have 
already been approved. Our colleagues really should care about that, 
too.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, if we want to talk about projects that have 
been killed by an administration, let's go back to the Biden 
administration and the Obama administration. Let's

[[Page H6036]]

look at projects like the Resolution Copper mine in Superior, Arizona, 
where they got a permit. They spent $2 billion, and they have yet to 
mine an ounce of copper because of NEPA holdups.
  Let's look at the Twin Metals project in northern Minnesota, where we 
have one of the largest deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, 
and palladium, all things we need. That has been going back and forth 
from one administration to the next.
  Let's look at the Keystone XL pipeline that was stopped after 
billions of dollars were spent, and not one drop of oil went through 
it.
  My colleagues are making the case for permitting reform. It just 
happens to be that we are in a Republican administration now, when they 
turned a blind eye to what was happening during a Democratic 
administration.
  This is why we need permitting reform.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4776, the SPEED Act.
  Mr. Chair, regardless of which sector of our economy you are talking 
about, whether it be healthcare, technology, or energy, it is always 
the same when groups come into my office: Permitting and regulations 
are crushing us.
  The SPEED Act is a critical step toward unleashing American energy 
dominance, bringing supply chains home, and much more. The National 
Environmental Policy Act is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, 
but it has created a costly, cumbersome process that has crippled our 
permitting system.
  The SPEED Act will modernize NEPA, and it will help permitting in the 
U.S. return to what it was originally intended to be. The SPEED Act 
will establish permitting timelines, and it will cut down on frivolous 
litigation that is simply meant to delay projects.
  Under SPEED, American development will no longer be held hostage by 
activists and environmental groups simply seeking to profit off of 
lawsuits.
  America needs to update its infrastructure, create new sources of 
energy, and deploy more broadband and transmission lines. The SPEED Act 
will help power a new generation of growth in our Nation.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, we just heard a list of projects that were 
allegedly halted by frivolous litigation, a case study for the SPEED 
Act.
  In fact, many of these are really bad projects, and the examples are 
often examples of the environmental review process working to protect 
the environment and protect people.
  The Dakota Access Pipeline decision was challenged by the Standing 
Rock Sioux Tribe, which won in court because the Army Corps of 
Engineers had failed to consider the impact of catastrophic oil spills 
on the Tribe's water supply and culturally sacred sites.
  The Resolution Copper mine was delayed because the proposed mine 
would, in fact, destroy Oak Flat, the most sacred site for the San 
Carlos Apache Tribe.

  Micron chose to build its semiconductor manufacturing facility near 
federally regulated wetlands and endangered habitat.
  I think what we are hearing, unfortunately, is that permitting reform 
to my friends across the aisle means a green light even for bad and 
destructive projects. That is not something the American people want to 
see.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, how about the last runway that was built at 
the Atlanta airport? It only took 11 years to build it. Actually, it 
only took 18 months. It took 9.5 years to go through the NEPA 
permitting process.
  These are the kinds of projects we are talking about all across the 
country that are being adversely affected by a cumbersome permitting 
process. It is not doing anything extra to help the environment or 
protect our resources. It is simply a way to stop progress and stop 
projects from happening.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Evans).
  Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Chair, I am proud to support the 
bipartisan SPEED Act today, of which I am a cosponsor, because, in 
part, my home State of Colorado is the sixth most heavily regulated 
State in the country. From affordable housing to affordable energy, it 
has become virtually impossible to build anything.
  The overburdensome Federal permitting process, layered with State 
regulations, passes on extraordinary costs to Coloradans by adding 
years of unnecessary delays and millions of dollars to new projects 
that communities need. In fact, many of the projects require more money 
to navigate the bureaucratic permitting process than they do for actual 
construction.
  Today, the House will change that and take a significant step toward 
comprehensive permitting reform by passing this bill. Americans who are 
worried about the high cost of living should pay attention.
  If my colleagues are serious about lowering costs for their 
constituents, they should support the SPEED Act.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, what about the $12 billion we put in the 
reconciliation bill to upgrade our air traffic control system? We are 
not talking about just permitting energy. We are talking about 
permitting safety.
  Look at how long it takes to build interstate highways and bridges, 
and the safety effects that happen because those projects are dragged 
out for so long. It costs so much more money, and it creates 
congestion. It creates all kinds of problems.
  If we could just move the permitting process more quickly, we could 
benefit not only from the cost of energy, the cost of transmission, and 
the cost of raw materials that we can be mining, but we could also 
improve the safety of our country.

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. Chair, we allocated $12 billion to upgrade the air traffic 
control system. The Department of Transportation tells me the problem 
is they can't get a NEPA permit to put fiber-optic cables in air 
traffic control towers. That is insane when something like an outdated 
air traffic control system that has funding can't be implemented 
because we can't get through the NEPA process to run a fiber-optic 
cable.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Arkansas has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, a lot of numbers have been thrown around on how NEPA takes 
so very, very long.
  Much of this is looking deep into the past and extrapolating from 
that. I want to correct the Record because, as of January 2025, $1 
billion in the Inflation Reduction Act for permitting was actually 
doing its job quite well. It had helped reduce the median time it takes 
to complete an Environmental Impact Statement, the most complex 
environmental review, by 28 percent. That is compared to times under 
the first Trump administration.
  The time was down a little over 2 years in 2024 compared to over 3\1/
2\ in 2019. That is 1\1/2\ years of improvement. Unfortunately, these 
steps forward have been taken away by our friends across the aisle. We 
are going in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Chair, in closing, the majority had a great opportunity here. 
Democrats were ready to work with them on meaningful and bipartisan 
permitting reform. They chose to reject our efforts to engage in good 
faith. Instead, what we have here is another Christmas giveaway to the 
wealthiest, most powerful people and companies in the country.
  I guess this is the golden age. These are wonderful times. A person 
can throw Great Gatsby parties if they are a billionaire, if they are 
one of these very, very rich interest groups.
  We should be thinking about everyday Americans right now. Many 
overburdened communities are saddled with significant pollution. We 
should think about helping them instead of making it harder for them to 
challenge projects that threaten the health and environmental damage 
visited upon their community.

[[Page H6037]]

  We should also think about rising utility bills, something we hear 
more and more about in this affordability crisis driven by Republican 
policies. Yet, our friends across the aisle look the other way as 
President Trump's crazy war on clean energy drives utility bills higher 
and higher.
  We should work toward a level playing field for clean energy instead 
of another handout for Big Oil. The American Clean Power Association 
has pulled its support for this legislation. The bill is opposed by the 
Solar Energy Industries Association and, of course, countless 
environmental justice organizations who know this bill will take a 
wrecking ball to government transparency, to community engagement, and 
to health and environmental protections.
  It didn't have to be this way. This was a terrible missed 
opportunity, but a bad bill has actually gotten worse through the 
process and not better.
  I strongly oppose the SPEED Act. I urge all of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, regardless of whether they may have supported this 
in the past--the bill has gotten worse--to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, permitting reform in the SPEED Act will help every 
American by lowering costs and increasing affordability. That is a word 
that is talked about a lot today, but I think we sometimes forget the 
question: Why are things not affordable?
  When we have to import all of our products, when we can't build new 
energy plants, and when we can't build public infrastructure projects 
on budget and on time, things become unaffordable. Now is the time for 
Congress not just to talk about how we need permitting reform but to 
actually walk the walk when it comes to helping the families in their 
districts keep the lights on.
  An analysis by Common Good shows that a 6-year delay in construction 
on public projects like building roads, something I think we all can 
agree on, costs the U.S. economy $3.7 trillion.
  The SPEED Act is supported by over 375 industry leaders ranging from 
utility companies and energy producers to homebuilders and domestic 
manufacturers. These are the industries that will lower everyday costs 
if we simply allow them to build here in America again. A vote for the 
SPEED Act is a vote for affordability.
  As I close, I want to return to the core principle at the heart of 
this debate and this legislation. The Federal permitting process should 
serve our national interests and not obstruct them. Let me say this 
again. Permitting should serve our national interests and not obstruct 
our national interests.
  NEPA no longer passes the test. It is currently a source of waste, 
abuse, and predatory litigation. Its unpredictability is fundamentally 
unfair to the local communities, to working families, and to taxpayers 
who depend on the infrastructure projects that NEPA obstructs. This has 
never been more true than today when demand for energy is dramatically 
spiking.
  America is blessed with resources we need for a future of energy 
dominance and critical mineral abundance. God has blessed America with 
minerals and with energy, we are just refusing to use them.
  Mr. Chair, we are dependent on China for 90 percent of our rare earth 
and critical minerals. That is not just economic insecurity. That is a 
national defense issue. They mine 70 percent of those around the world 
and process and control 90 percent of them.
  We have all of them here in America. We refuse to do the permitting, 
not just to build mines but to build refineries that will create jobs 
for Americans.

  When we mine the materials out of the ground and we process them and 
put them into manufactured goods, there is a multiplier effect by 28. 
That is what the USGS and Department of Commerce says. We multiply that 
value by 28. Think of the good-paying jobs Americans could have if we 
not only mined here in America but if we refined and manufactured 
products from those things that we mined.
  The SPEED Act is a targeted, bipartisan solution that will restore 
balance and accountability to the Federal permitting process. It will 
streamline administrative review and curtail open-ended and dilatory 
litigation. These are practical, commonsense reforms that, again, I 
will say have garnered the support of more than 375 business, labor, 
and nonprofit groups from across the country, from all 50 States and 
Puerto Rico.
  Mr. Chair, we are at a critical point in our country. America has 
always been a place where we have a can-do attitude. We have always 
been able to succeed. I like to say we are ``Ameri-cans.'' We are not 
``Ameri-can'ts.''
  The current permitting laws are telling Americans they can't. We 
can't be innovative. We can't develop. We can't build here. We have to 
be dependent on somebody else, somewhere else. We can't have the jobs 
to earn good wages. We can't grow our rural communities because we 
can't get through the bureaucratic red tape and permitting. The SPEED 
Act is the first step in doing that.
  Mr. Chair, we have to pass this bill. We have to get it to the 
Senate. We have to work with our Senate colleagues because this is an 
important time in our country, and this is an important piece of 
legislation. It is an important issue that affects every American, and 
today is the day to pass the SPEED Act. I urge my colleagues to support 
the SPEED Act to get ourselves building again.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and the further amendment specified in 
section 5 of House Resolution 953, printed in the bill, shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4776

       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 ``Standardizing Permitting and 
     Expediting Economic Development Act'' or the ``SPEED Act''.

     SEC. 2. NEPA REFORM.

       (a) Purpose.--Section 2 of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The purposes'' and inserting ``(a) The 
     purposes''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) This Act is a purely procedural statute intended to 
     ensure Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of 
     their actions during the decisionmaking process. This Act 
     does not mandate particular results, and only prescribes a 
     process. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to mandate 
     any specific environmental outcome or result, nor shall this 
     Act be interpreted to confer substantive rights or impose 
     substantive duties beyond procedural requirements.''.
       (b) Procedure for Determination of Level of Review.--
     Section 106 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4336) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``; scope of review'' 
     after ``level of review'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``action.'' and inserting 
     ``action;''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the agency determines the proposed agency action is 
     an action for which such agency's compliance with another 
     statute's requirements serves the function of agency 
     compliance with this Act with respect to such action; or
       ``(6) the proposed agency action relates to a project or 
     action that has already been reviewed pursuant to a State 
     environmental review statute or a Tribal environmental review 
     statute, ordinance, resolution, regulation, or formally 
     adopted policy and the lead agency determines such review 
     serves the function of agency compliance with this Act.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``does not'' and 
     inserting ``is not likely to''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by amending subparagraph (B) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(B) is not required to--
       ``(i) undertake new scientific or technical research unless 
     the new scientific or technical research is essential to a 
     reasoned choice among alternatives, and the overall costs and 
     time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable; or
       ``(ii) undertake new scientific or technical research after 
     the receipt of an application, as applicable, with respect to 
     a proposed agency action.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Scope of Review.--In preparing an environmental 
     document for a proposed agency action, a Federal agency--

[[Page H6038]]

       ``(1) may consider only those effects that share a 
     reasonably close causal relationship to, and are proximately 
     caused by, the immediate project or action under 
     consideration; and
       ``(2) may not consider effects that are speculative, 
     attenuated from the project or action, separate in time or 
     place from the project or action, or in relation to separate 
     existing or potential future projects or actions.
       ``(d) Certainty.--
       ``(1) Environmental documents.--A Federal agency may not 
     rescind, withdraw, amend, alter, or otherwise render 
     ineffective any environmental document completed under this 
     Act for a project or action where there is an applicant 
     unless the Federal agency has been so ordered by a court or 
     the applicant has agreed in writing to such rescission, 
     withdrawal, amendment, or alteration.
       ``(2) Authorizations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in this subsection or 
     existing law, a Federal agency may not revoke, rescind, 
     withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, alter, or take any other 
     action to interfere with an authorization unless--
       ``(i) the Federal agency is required to take such action by 
     order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
       ``(ii) the holder of the authorization has materially 
     breached the terms of the authorization, or otherwise 
     violated applicable law;
       ``(iii) the authorization was obtained through fraud, 
     intentional concealment, or material misrepresentation;
       ``(iv) such action is necessary to prevent specific, 
     immediate, substantial, and proximate harm or damage to life, 
     property, national security, or defense that was not 
     considered in the underlying environmental review process or 
     final agency action for the authorization; or
       ``(v) the Federal agency has received a request from the 
     holder of the authorization or project sponsor to take such 
     action.
       ``(B) Requirement.--The actions described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be, as appropriate and where feasible, supported by 
     clear and convincing evidence and reasonably limited in 
     duration and scope by the agency to address the specific 
     issue such action is intended to address.
       ``(C) Notice.--Before an agency takes an action described 
     in subparagraph (A), the agency shall notify the holder of 
     the authorization and the project sponsor in writing of such 
     action, including by providing a detailed explanation of the 
     action, identifying the statutory authority relied upon for 
     the action, and providing the evidence supporting the action.
       ``(D) Judicial review.--
       ``(i) In general.--An action described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be subject to judicial review under chapter 7 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       ``(ii) Venue.--A person seeking judicial review of an 
     action described in subparagraph (A) may only obtain review 
     of such action in the United States court of appeals for any 
     circuit wherein the project for which the authorization was 
     issued is located.
       ``(iii) Petitions by federal agencies.--No Federal agency 
     may petition a court for vacatur or voluntary remand of an 
     authorization unless the holder of the authorization or the 
     project sponsor consents in writing to such a petition.
       ``(E) Savings clause.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     construed to provide any Federal agency new, enhanced, or 
     expanded authority, or to limit any existing authority, 
     concerning any authorization.
       ``(e) Presumption of Negative Impacts of Taking No Action 
     Relating to Tribal Trust Resources.--For any proposed agency 
     action carried out on, or directly affecting, tribal trust 
     resources (including lands and minerals) that is initiated by 
     the federally recognized Indian Tribe for which the United 
     States holds the affected resources in trust, and for which 
     an environmental document was prepared that included 
     consideration of a no action alternative, there shall be a 
     presumption that the effects of taking no action will be 
     negative for the federally recognized Indian Tribe.
       ``(f) Effect of Threshold Determinations on Other 
     Agencies.--If a lead agency determines an environmental 
     document is not required to be prepared with respect to a 
     proposed agency action under subsection (a), another agency 
     may not prepare an environmental document with respect to 
     such proposed agency action.''.
       (c) Timely and Unified Federal Reviews.--
       (1) Lead agency.--Section 107(a) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336a(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``at the earliest 
     practicable time'' and inserting ``in accordance with 
     subsection (g)(2)'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``carry out the 
     proposed agency action'' and inserting ``carry out the 
     proposed agency action in compliance with the deadlines 
     outlined in subsection (g)''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (E)--

       (I) by striking ``a review'' and inserting ``an 
     environmental review''; and
       (II) by striking ``such review'' and inserting ``such 
     environmental review''; and

       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting ``(including counties, boroughs, parishes, 
     and other political subdivisions of a State)'' after ``local 
     agency''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end ``Such comments from Federal 
     cooperating agencies shall be limited to matters relating to 
     the proposed agency action with respect to which such Federal 
     cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law.''.
       (2) One document.--Section 107(b) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336a(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``To the extent practicable,'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Document.--To the extent practicable,''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Consideration timing.--
       ``(A) In general.--In preparing an environmental document 
     for a proposed agency action, no Federal agency shall be 
     required to consider any scientific or technical research 
     that becomes publicly available after the earlier of, as 
     applicable--
       ``(i) the date of receipt of an application with respect to 
     such proposed agency action; and
       ``(ii) the date of publication of a notice of intent or 
     decision to prepare such environmental document for such 
     proposed agency action.
       ``(B) Applicability to other law.--This paragraph does not 
     affect any review of information required under subchapter II 
     of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, with respect to 
     comments received during the public comment period as 
     applicable.
       ``(C) Delay.--A Federal agency may not delay the issuance 
     of an environmental document or a final agency action, 
     including any decision or determination, on the basis of 
     awaiting new scientific or technical research or information 
     that was not available as of the earlier of the dates 
     described in subparagraph (A).''.
       (3) Statement of purpose and need.--Section 107(d) of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4336a(d)) is amended by striking ``action.'' and inserting 
     ``action. Where applicable, the statement of purpose and need 
     shall meet the goals of the applicant.''.
       (4) Deadlines.--Section 107(g) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     paragraphs (3), (5), and (6), respectively;
       (B) by inserting before paragraph (3) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(1) Applications for authorizations.--
       ``(A) Notification of complete or incomplete application.--
     Unless a shorter deadline is specified by law, in connection 
     with a proposed agency action for which an applicant 
     submitted an application for an authorization to an agency, 
     not later than 60 days after the date on which the applicant 
     submits the application to the agency, the agency shall 
     document the receipt of the application and--
       ``(i) notify the applicant that the application is 
     complete; or
       ``(ii) notify the applicant that the application is 
     incomplete and request in writing any additional information 
     that the agency needs to determine that the application is 
     complete and begin preparation of an environmental document.
       ``(B) Agency determination.--
       ``(i) Complete determination.--If an agency determines an 
     application is complete under subparagraph (A)(i), the agency 
     shall, not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     agency makes such determination--

       ``(I) notify the applicant that the agency has determined 
     that the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to one 
     of the agency's categorical exclusions, is not a major 
     Federal action, or that no further agency action is required;
       ``(II) issue a notice of intent to prepare an environmental 
     impact statement for such proposed agency action; or
       ``(III) notify the applicant that the agency has determined 
     that preparation of an environmental assessment is necessary.

       ``(ii) Incomplete determination.--If the agency requests 
     additional information under subparagraph (A)(ii), the 
     deadline described in clause (i) shall be based on the date 
     on which the agency receives the additional information 
     instead of the date on which the determination is made.
       ``(2) Cooperating agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 21 days after a lead 
     agency issues a notice of intent under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i)(II) or notifies an applicant under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i)(III) with respect to a proposed agency action, the 
     lead agency shall--
       ``(i) identify all agencies that are likely to have 
     environmental review, authorization, or other 
     responsibilities with respect to the proposed agency action; 
     and
       ``(ii) invite each such agency to become a cooperating 
     agency.
       ``(B) Deadline to accept invitation.--Not later than 21 
     days after an agency receives an invitation to become a 
     cooperating agency under subparagraph (A)(ii), such agency 
     shall accept or deny the invitation.
       ``(C) Convening of cooperating agencies.--Not later than 7 
     days after the deadline described in subparagraph (B) has 
     passed for each agency that received an invitation to become 
     a cooperating agency under subparagraph (A)(ii), the lead 
     agency that sent each such invitation shall convene each 
     agency that accepts such an invitation to coordinate on 
     developing the schedule under subsection (a)(2)(D) for the 
     applicable proposed agency action.
       ``(D) Unidentified agencies.--In the event that an agency 
     that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with 
     respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed 
     agency action is not identified under subparagraph (A)(i), 
     the lead agency with respect to the proposed agency action 
     shall--
       ``(i) invite such unidentified agency to become a 
     cooperating agency by not later than 7 days after becoming 
     aware that the agency has jurisdiction by law or special 
     expertise; and
       ``(ii) if such agency accepts the invitation, incorporate 
     such agency into the schedule developed under subsection 
     (a)(2)(D) and update such schedule accordingly by not later 
     than 14 days after the date on which such agency accepts the 
     invitation.'';
       (C) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``In general'' and inserting ``Review 
     timeline''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(5)'';
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:

[[Page H6039]]

       ``(4) Deadline for final agency action.--For any proposed 
     agency action for which an applicant submitted an application 
     for an authorization to an agency, not later than 30 days 
     after completing an environmental impact statement or an 
     environmental assessment for the proposed agency action, the 
     lead agency, and any cooperating agency, shall issue a final 
     agency action. The agency issuing such final agency action 
     shall include in the final agency action a performance 
     schedule for the completion of any other outstanding 
     authorizations.'';
       (E) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``the deadline described in paragraph (1)'' 
     and inserting ``a deadline described in this subsection''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``, in consultation with the applicant, 
     to'' and inserting ``if the applicant approves such 
     extension. If the applicant approves such extension, the lead 
     agency shall'';
       (F) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``A project sponsor may'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a project sponsor 
     may''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Exception.--A project sponsor that approved an 
     extension of a deadline under paragraph (5) may not obtain 
     judicial review of a failure to act in accordance with such 
     deadline under subparagraph (A) unless the lead agency fails 
     to meet the new deadline or is delaying for reasons other 
     than those necessary to complete its review.''; and
       (G) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Concurrent review.--In carrying out an environmental 
     review, the lead agency and each cooperating agency shall 
     carry out the obligations of that agency under other 
     applicable laws concurrently, and in conjunction, with other 
     required reviews for the proposed agency action, pursuant to 
     the requirements of applicable law, including, if applicable, 
     under this Act.''.
       (d) Programmatic Environmental Documents.--Section 108 of 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4336b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``When an agency prepares'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Programmatic Environmental Documents.--When an agency 
     prepares'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``5'' and inserting 
     ``10'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``5'' and inserting 
     ``10''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Reliance on Previously Completed Environmental 
     Reviews.--
       ``(1) Actions that are substantially the same.--A lead 
     agency may satisfy the requirements of this Act with respect 
     to a major Federal action by relying on an environmental 
     assessment, environmental impact statement, or a categorical 
     exclusion determination that the lead agency, another Federal 
     agency, or a project sponsor under the supervision of a 
     Federal agency completed for another major Federal action if 
     the lead agency determines that--
       ``(A) the new major Federal action is substantially the 
     same as the other major Federal action or, if applicable, an 
     alternative analyzed in such environmental assessment or 
     environmental impact statement; and
       ``(B) if applicable, the effects of the new major Federal 
     action are substantially the same as the effects analyzed in 
     such environmental assessment or environmental impact 
     statement.
       ``(2) Actions that are not substantially the same.--If a 
     new major Federal action is not substantially the same as 
     another major Federal action or an alternative analyzed in an 
     environmental assessment or environmental impact statement 
     completed by the lead agency, another Federal agency, or a 
     project sponsor under the supervision of a Federal agency, 
     the lead agency may modify or augment any such previously 
     completed environmental assessment or environmental impact 
     statement as necessary to satisfy the requirements of this 
     Act with respect to the new major Federal action. The lead 
     agency shall make such modified environmental assessment or 
     environmental impact statement publicly available as a new 
     environmental assessment or environmental impact 
     statement.''.
       (e) Adoption of Categorical Exclusions.--Section 109 of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336c) 
     is amended in the text preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``, or that was legislatively enacted by Congress,'' after 
     ``procedures''.
       (f) Definitions.--Section 111 of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336e) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (13) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (14), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(1) Authorization.--The term `authorization' means any 
     lease, right-of-way, easement, license, permit, approval, 
     finding, determination, or other administrative decision 
     issued by an agency or any interagency consultation that is 
     required or authorized under Federal law in order to 
     construct, modify, or operate a project.'';
       (3) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), by inserting ``, 
     or Congress deems by statute,'' after ``Federal agency has 
     determined'';
       (4) in paragraph (11) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in clause (iii)--

       (I) by inserting ``grants (including capitalization 
     grants), cost share awards,'' after ``loan guarantees,'';
       (II) by striking ``sufficient'' and inserting ``complete''; 
     and
       (III) by striking ``subsequent use of such financial 
     assistance or the'';

       (ii) by redesignating clauses (iv) through (vii) as clauses 
     (vi) through (ix), respectively; and
       (iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
       ``(iv) farm ownership loans and operating loan guarantees 
     by the Farm Service Agency pursuant to sections 305 and 311 
     through 319 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act;
       ``(v) the issuance of an authorization by an agency where 
     the effects of the action or project being permitted or 
     authorized were previously evaluated by another agency in 
     compliance with this Act;''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Additional exclusions.--An agency action may not be 
     determined to be a major Federal action solely on the basis 
     of the provision of Federal funds, including a grant, loan, 
     loan guarantee, and funding assistance.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) Reasonably foreseeable.--The term `reasonably 
     foreseeable', with respect to environmental effects of a 
     proposed agency action--
       ``(A) means effects that share a reasonably close causal 
     relationship to, and are proximately caused by, the immediate 
     project or action under consideration; and
       ``(B) does not include effects that are--
       ``(i) speculative;
       ``(ii) attenuated from the proposed agency action;
       ``(iii) separate in time or place from the proposed agency 
     action; or
       ``(iv) in relation to separate existing or potential future 
     projects.''.
       (g) Duties.--Section 204 of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4344) is amended in paragraph 
     (4) by inserting ``energy,'' after ``health,''.

     SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       Title I of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 112 as section 110A and moving 
     such section so as to appear after section 110; and
       (2) by inserting before section 111 the following:

     ``SEC. 110B. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) Role of the Court.--In reviewing a claim of whether a 
     final agency action complies with the requirements of this 
     Act, a court--
       ``(1) shall afford substantial deference to the agency; and
       ``(2) may not substitute its judgment for that of the 
     agency regarding the environmental effects included in the 
     final agency action or included in the environmental 
     document.
       ``(b) Remand.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a court holds, under section 
     706(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, that a final agency 
     action does not comply with the requirements of this Act, the 
     only remedy the court may order, notwithstanding chapter 7 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is to remand, without vacatur or 
     injunction, the final agency action to the agency with--
       ``(A) specific instruction to correct the errors or 
     deficiencies found by the court; and
       ``(B) a reasonable schedule and deadline to correct such 
     errors or deficiencies, which such deadline may not exceed--
       ``(i) with regard to an order entered on or after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the date that is 180 days after 
     the date on which the order was entered; and
       ``(ii) with regard to an order entered before the date of 
     enactment of this section, the date that is 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Continued effect of final agency action.--A final 
     agency action remanded under paragraph (1) shall remain in 
     effect while the Federal agency corrects any errors or 
     deficiencies found by the court.
       ``(c) Limitations on Claims.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (except as provided in subparagraph (A) with respect to a 
     shorter deadline), a claim described in subsection (a) shall 
     be barred unless--
       ``(A) such claim is filed not later than 150 days after the 
     final agency action is made public, unless a shorter deadline 
     is specified under law;
       ``(B) in the case of a final agency action for which there 
     was a public comment period on an environmental document, 
     such claim--
       ``(i) is filed by a party that submitted a substantive and 
     unique comment during such public comment period by the 
     noticed comment deadline for the environmental document and 
     such comment was sufficiently detailed to put the applicable 
     Federal agency on notice of the issue upon which the party 
     seeks review; and
       ``(ii) concerns the same subject matter raised in the 
     comment submitted during the public comment period;
       ``(C) such claim is filed by a party that has suffered or 
     imminently will suffer direct harm from the final agency 
     action; and
       ``(D) such claim does not challenge the establishment of a 
     categorical exclusion.
       ``(2) Supplemental environmental documents.--If an agency 
     issues a supplemental environmental document in response to a 
     court order remanding a final agency action, the deadline 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be the date on which the 
     agency makes public the agency action for which the 
     supplemental environmental document is prepared. A claim for 
     review of such final agency action shall be limited to 
     information contained in the final supplemental environmental 
     document that was not contained in a previous environmental 
     document for the final agency action.
       ``(3) Actions for use of tribal trust resources.--For any 
     final agency action that authorizes or affects the use of 
     lands, minerals, or other resources already held in trust at 
     the time of the final agency action by the United States for 
     the benefit of a federally recognized Indian Tribe--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), there shall 
     be no administrative or judicial review of such final agency 
     action based on a

[[Page H6040]]

     claim of failure to comply with the requirements of this Act; 
     and
       ``(B) subparagraph (A) shall not apply to actions for 
     administrative or judicial review--
       ``(i) brought by the federally recognized Indian Tribe for 
     which the United States holds the lands, minerals, or other 
     resources in trust; or
       ``(ii) that involve reasonably foreseeable effects of the 
     final agency action that occur outside the lands, minerals, 
     or other resources held in trust by the United States for the 
     benefit of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.
       ``(d) Deadline for Resolution.--
       ``(1) In general.--A court shall issue a final judgment on 
     a claim described in subsection (a)--
       ``(A) as expeditiously as practicable; and
       ``(B) unless a shorter deadline is specified under Federal 
     law, not later than the date that is 180 days after the date 
     on which the agency record for the review is filed with the 
     reviewing court, which shall not be more than 60 days after 
     the filing of the claim.
       ``(2) Accelerated deadlines.--Nothing in this subsection 
     may be construed to prevent a court from further expediting 
     review of a claim described in subsection (a).
       ``(3) Appeals.--
       ``(A) Filing.--A notice of appeal of a final judgment 
     described in this subsection shall be filed not later than 60 
     days after such final judgment is issued. In the case of a 
     final agency action remanded under subsection (b), the agency 
     and, if applicable, the applicant, shall have the right to 
     appeal during the pendency of the remand.
       ``(B) Deadline for review.--A court shall issue a final 
     decision on an appeal filed under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) as expeditiously as practicable; and
       ``(ii) not later than the date that is 180 days after the 
     date on which the appeal is filed.
       ``(e) No Effect on Review of Compliance With Other 
     Deadlines.--This section shall not affect the right to obtain 
     review under section 107(g)(3).''.

     SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF ONGOING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTIONS.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply to any agency action with respect to which a Federal 
     agency has, during the period beginning on January 20, 2025, 
     and ending on the date of enactment of this Act--
       (1) filed a motion to voluntarily remand; or
       (2) otherwise reopened, reconsidered, or initiated 
     corrective action under the statutory authority of the 
     Federal agency, regardless of whether the Federal agency has 
     completed such corrective action as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in House Report 119-410. Each such 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.

                              {time}  1030


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Clyde

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 119-410.
  Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 26, line 8, insert ``, which shall not include 
     aesthetic, recreational, or emotional interests unaccompanied 
     by material physical or property harm'' after ``final agency 
     action''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 951, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4776, the 
SPEED Act, which will improve the bill's judicial standing provision to 
limit frivolous lawsuits and ensure that projects are not delayed by 
radical activist groups without actual material harm to themselves.
  This amendment makes a simple but important clarification. It ensures 
that only material physical or property harm, not purely aesthetic, 
recreational, or emotional interests, qualifies someone to challenge a 
Federal agency action under NEPA.
  As established by the bill we are considering today, NEPA is a 
procedural statute. Its purpose is to require Federal agencies to 
disclose and consider environmental effects before taking major 
actions, not to confer substantive environmental rights, or to serve as 
a tool for endless litigation.
  The amendment aligns NEPA's judicial review provisions with that core 
purpose by anchoring standing in concrete, legally cognizant harms, 
rather than subjective or generalized interests.
  By focusing standing on tangible harms, this amendment helps prevent 
NEPA from being used as a delay tactic in every dispute over 
administrative decisions, a tactic that too often slows necessary 
infrastructure and energy projects without materially improving 
environmental protection.
  It ensures that courts remain a venue for adjudicating real disputes, 
where plaintiffs have demonstrable stakes, while preserving agency and 
judicial resources for the most serious and legally grounded claims.
  At the same time, this amendment does not eliminate judicial review 
or impede legitimate challenges where there are real impacts. 
Stakeholders with substantive claims under existing environmental and 
land management statutes will continue to have full recourse to the 
courts under those laws.
  What this amendment does is reinforce NEPA's role as a procedural 
check that it was intended to be.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to 
bring greater clarity and balance to NEPA's standing and to promote a 
more efficient and predictable permitting process, consistent with both 
environmental disclosure and responsible development.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Evans of Colorado). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a perfect example of how, even 
when team extreme puts together the most dramatic rollback of America's 
most important bedrock environmental law, it is not enough for some 
factions within the Republican Conference.
  Mr. Chair, I do oppose this amendment because, at its core, it is 
built on a tired trope--the trope that NEPA litigation is some huge 
driver of frivolous litigation and an argument that we hear all too 
often to justify more and more limits on judicial review to make it 
harder and harder for the public to participate in the review process 
and to help oil and gas and other polluting projects.
  However, the facts do not back up the story that we keep hearing. One 
recent study from the University of Utah found that only 1 out of every 
450 actions subject to NEPA are ever even litigated. That amounts to 
0.23 percent. According to a recent Congressional Research Service 
report: ``Historically, fewer than 1 percent of Federal actions subject 
to NEPA have been litigated.'' That is important context.
  Mr. Chair, the idea behind this amendment, that we need to keep 
layering on more and more restrictions to shut out the public, to 
eliminate legal challenges, and to stop frivolous litigation is 
overblown, especially in the context of an underlying bill which 
already imposes dramatic new barriers that make it almost impossible to 
bring a case to court.
  Among other hurdles, the underlying bill says that you have to have 
commented during a comment period, even as the Trump administration is 
restricting the opportunity to comment.
  It also requires that your comment has to be ``unique.'' This is a 
new term of art. It doesn't exist in current law. We don't even know 
what it really means, but, presumably, if anyone else has submitted the 
same comment or has flagged the same problem with a Federal action, you 
are out because your comment is no longer unique.
  To add a cherry on top of all of that, even if you get into court, 
the SPEED Act would bind judges, forcing them to allow even dangerous 
and illegal projects to proceed, making the judicial review process 
extremely hollow.
  Mr. Chairman, judicial review is a cornerstone of democracy. When the 
government makes a bad decision or an illegal decision, I would hope we 
could all agree that there are times, since the government doesn't get 
everything just right, that citizens need to be able to challenge that 
action and hold the government accountable to make sure the law is 
followed.
  Access to the courts is a backstop for communities, who are left out 
of the

[[Page H6041]]

NEPA process, to make their concerns heard and to ensure that Federal 
Government actions properly consider environmental impacts.
  Though we have heard a lot of fear-mongering about frivolous 
lawsuits, there are already effective safeguards in place. All 
plaintiffs have to demonstrate that they have actually been harmed by a 
project to have standing, and NEPA will be meaningless unless there is 
a way to enforce it when the government does something harmful or 
illegal.
  That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

  Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chairman, any frivolous lawsuit is one frivolous 
lawsuit too many. It is just not appropriate when we have legitimate 
actions to improve our economy and to make sure that America moves 
forward.
  Chairman Westerman mentioned the 11 years that it took to build the 
Atlanta airport in my home State. Really, it took 18 months to actually 
break ground and build the airfield, but 9\1/2\ years for permitting. 
That is just not acceptable.
  The Pentagon was built in just a little over a year. That could never 
happen today simply because of the permitting process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have found some common ground. 
I hear that any frivolous lawsuit is one too many, so I just want to 
remind the gentleman that maybe one of the most prolific frivolous 
litigators in history is in the White House right now.
  I remind the gentleman about the raft of frivolous lawsuits 
challenging the 2020 election results, resulting, in many cases, not 
just in losses in court but in the disbarment of some of the Republican 
luminary lawyers like Rudy Giuliani.
  If we pretend to care about frivolous lawsuits, I know consistency is 
out of fashion these days, but we should really mean it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chairman, I think the Keystone XL Pipeline is another 
example of frivolous lawsuits and the years it took. Yet that pipeline 
still is not functional in its entirety.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I simply want to read what 
my amendment says:
  ``Page 26, line 8, insert `, which shall not include aesthetic, 
recreational, or emotional interests unaccompanied by material physical 
or property harm' after `final agency action'.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is concrete, and, therefore, I encourage all of my 
colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, we should be against all truly frivolous 
things--not just frivolous lawsuits but frivolous legislation 
masquerading as permitting reform, frivolous amendments, frivolous 
distractions at the end of probably the most unproductive Congress in 
American history this year at a time when the American people are 
struggling. That is what is truly frivolous.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1040

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 
4 printed in the House Report 119-410 will not be offered.


                   Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 119-410.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Mr. Perry, and I have 
an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) may consider only those effects over which the lead 
     agency or cooperating Federal agencies have jurisdiction by 
     law and share a reasonably close causal relationship to, and 
     are proximately caused by, the immediate project or action 
     under consideration; and''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 951, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, this amendment revises the scope of review clause 
within the bill and strengthens the codification of the Supreme Court's 
Seven County decision issued earlier this year.
  Now, my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) is the author of this 
amendment, and I am offering it for him because he is in committee 
business. He was offering this amendment to further improve the bill 
and limit agencies from taking into consideration factors which are not 
within their authority to regulate. This is the core issue at the heart 
of what was going on in the Seven County decision.
  Congress should continue to build upon that unanimous decision. Let 
me be very clear that the Seven County decision was unanimous and 
further improved NEPA. This bill that the chairman has brought here to 
the floor takes significant strides in improving NEPA, and improves 
upon it by limiting what agencies can regulate to what they already can 
by law. By ensuring that the scope of review is conducted within the 
sole legal purview of each Federal agency, we can drastically improve 
the current landscape of drawn-out, ineffective permitting.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, the majority has suggested that the 
underlying bill's changes to NEPA on the scope of review simply codify 
the Supreme Court's Seven County decision, but the SPEED Act actually 
goes much further than that Court decision. The Court left broad 
discretion for agencies to determine what impacts are relevant and how 
far the environmental analysis should go.
  The Seven County decision allows agencies to analyze environmental 
impacts when those impacts are reasonably foreseeable, although the 
Court did limit what agencies are required to review. The underlying 
bill and this amendment do something entirely different. They strip 
agencies of their discretion to consider a broad range of environmental 
impacts.
  This could have far-reaching consequences for communities, the 
environment, and public health, even when the science is clear and the 
consequences are very real.
  The bill would prevent agencies from examining the harms that 
communities across the country are living with right now. A perfect 
example is Louisiana's Cancer Alley, where predominantly Black 
neighborhoods face some of the highest pollution-related cancer risks 
in the Nation, and those risks come from cumulative emissions from many 
facilities that have been built over decades and impacts that are well 
documented and directly tied to Federal permitting decisions.
  Under this bill, agencies would largely be prohibited from 
considering any cumulative effects, anything that worsens that 
preexisting problem. That is not streamlining. That is telling Federal 
agencies to look the other way in the face of obvious, foreseeable 
harm.
  NEPA's strength has always been its requirement that agencies take a 
hard look at the real-world consequences of their actions. That is how 
agencies avoid unintended harm. It is how the public stays informed, 
and it is how Federal decisions remain accountable and transparent.
  The language in this bill dismantles that approach, and this 
amendment takes it even further by continuing to strip away what courts 
have left in terms of discretion for agencies to consider. This will 
result in more harm to

[[Page H6042]]

many American communities, including some of our most vulnerable 
communities that are already overburdened with pollution.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, this amendment would insert that Federal agencies 
``may consider only those effects over which the lead agency or 
cooperating Federal agencies have jurisdiction by law and share a 
reasonably close causal relationship to, and are proximately caused by, 
the immediate project or action under consideration.''
  There shouldn't be anything objectionable in that commonsense 
application, that commonsense phrasing. It is a commonsense change that 
strengthens the bill by narrowing the scope of NEPA to impacts that 
Federal agencies have the legal authority to regulate.
  It is pretty simple. It avoids time-consuming reviews of impacts from 
paleontology to traffic patterns that agencies cannot even control.
  By ensuring that the scope of review is conducted within the sole 
legal purview of each Federal agency, we can drastically improve the 
current landscape of drawn-out and ineffective permitting.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think common sense is that if an agency 
is proposing or is considering a project that would be the tipping 
point for a community that is already overburdened by pollution, and 
that would dramatically increase a problem like Cancer Alley in 
Louisiana, they ought to be able to consider those cumulative impacts. 
I would call that common sense.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the goal of this amendment is in keeping with the 
unanimous Supreme Court decision in which the Court jumped in and 
reversed the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit had said, well, we are not 
going to allow this to proceed, despite you having this 3,600-page 
report, this environmental impact statement, gone through public 
comments, et cetera.
  Everything had been approved, and then the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals invalidated that approval, finding that the environmental 
review overlooked a number of various impacts. The Supreme Court came 
in and said, No, let's reverse that. You have gone through the process, 
and what we are trying to do is codify that which would enable us to 
avoid the kinds of delays that have been hampering our ability to have 
energy projects.

  There is a reason everybody's utility bills are up and energy costs 
are high. It is because we have constrained the ability of our States, 
communities, and businesses to be able to create and provide the 
ability for us to have power without getting hamstrung into decades-
long disputes and fights going through all the back channels of a maze 
of bureaucracy. This is a simple, commonsense amendment to try to 
streamline that.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is simply about 
codifying the Supreme Court's decision, why doesn't it say what the 
Supreme Court said?
  The Supreme Court said that agencies would be able to have discretion 
to consider cumulative impacts, traffic patterns, and other things in 
circumstances where those were very compelling factors. This amendment 
says, No, you can't consider any of that.
  Let's not kid ourselves. This is not codifying the Supreme Court's 
decision. This is taking it much, much further.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, of course, they maintain discretion. Agencies 
will have full discretion if we adopt this language, the discretion to 
consider the effects over which that agency or the cooperating Federal 
agencies have jurisdiction. That is it.
  What we are saying is that we shouldn't have courts making stuff up, 
and we shouldn't have agencies making stuff up. That is all we are 
trying to say. Let's get everybody in their lanes. Let's get the 
agencies in their lanes, and then, let's allow the American people to 
do what they do best.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1050


                   Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Roy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in of House Report 119-410.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 23, after line 13, insert the following:
       (h) Definition of Significant Effects.--Section 111 of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4336e), 
     as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(16) Significant effect on the quality of the human 
     environment.--The term `significant effect on the quality of 
     the human environment' means a proximate and concrete harm 
     that is directly caused by the proposed agency action and 
     that materially impairs human health or property.''.
       (i) Implementation of Definition of Significant Effects.--
     Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is amended by striking 
     ``significantly affecting the quality of the human 
     environment, a detailed statement'' and inserting ``with at 
     least one significant effect on the quality of the human 
     environment, an environmental impact statement''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 951, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, my amendment shores up and strengthens the 
definition of what triggers an environmental impact statement.
  I offer this amendment to further improve the bill and prevent 
agencies from keeping projects in permitting limbo.
  Again, the driving force here is to try to free up the American 
people and free up free enterprise to be able to produce adequate and 
abundant energy for the American people, to be able to produce and 
create and develop projects that create and provide jobs and to be able 
to make sure the American people can prosper without being hamstrung by 
the bureaucracy of a Federal Government that has been limiting our 
ability to keep up and produce.
  While the base text of the bill makes a great effort to reduce the 
length of NEPA review by placing caps on all parts of the process, 
further defining what constitutes a significant effect that triggers an 
environmental impact statement will make the bill stronger.
  Performing an environmental impact statement is the lengthiest and 
most expensive part of the permitting process. The Government 
Accountability Office estimates the lengthy EIS process costs between 
$250,000 and $2 million every time there is a project.
  My amendment inserts commonsense language that requires at least one 
significant effect be triggered before an agency subjects a project to 
the lengthy EIS process.
  Specifically, my amendment defines a significant effect as: having a 
proximate and concrete harm that is directly caused by the proposed 
agency action and that materially impairs human health or property.
  By adopting this amendment, House Republicans can actually 
demonstrate their promise to get Washington's bureaucracies out of the 
way of progress and fulfill, I think, the great intent of this 
legislation that the chairman has put together and my colleagues on the 
committee have brought to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6043]]

  

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is one 
more attempt to restrict what the government can consider in an 
environmental review and turn NEPA into nothing more than a box-
checking exercise. You get all of the bureaucracy but none of the 
benefits under this approach.
  The amendment would add a narrow definition of significant effects on 
the human environment in order to limit which projects get a closer 
look under NEPA.
  It is important to recognize that we already have a high standard for 
which projects get that closer look. Only proposed actions that are 
anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment undergo an 
environmental impact statement, or EIS, which is the most thorough form 
of NEPA review.
  Agencies don't do environmental impact statements willy-nilly. Only 
about 1 percent of all projects go through this process. These are the 
types of large-scale, complex projects that can have serious, long-
lasting impacts on the environment, things like mines that remove 
entire mountaintops, things like the construction of a new nuclear 
power plant, exactly the types of things that should get close scrutiny 
and that the public deserves to have a chance to weigh in on.
  This amendment redefines significant effect on the environment to 
mean only concrete harms that are directly caused by the proposed 
agency action and materially impair human health or property. That is a 
drastic narrowing of how we think about the impacts of Federal actions.
  To use a public lands example, I will just quote from the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. It says: The policy of the 
United States is to manage public lands in a manner that will protect 
the quality of scientific, scenic, historic, ecological, environmental, 
air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values.
  Now the courts have backed up this spectrum of values for decades. 
The Supreme Court has held that NEPA should analyze a broad range of 
harms, including recreational and esthetic enjoyment of the 
environment.
  Who here really thinks that there is no significant effect on the 
environment of a proposed refinery that would only light up a protected 
dark sky all night, every night next to a neighborhood? Or is there 
really no significant effect on the environment if a pipeline would 
disrupt big game migrations that hunters depend on to feed their 
families?
  Of course, this definition means no amount of climate-changing 
emissions that could be considered to have had a significant effect on 
the environment would ever be considered.
  The American people deserve the full picture of a proposed action and 
its significant effects on the environment. This amendment puts the 
blinders on even more than the underlying bill, which already goes too 
far in that direction.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' on the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the reason we are here, the reason that we have 
this legislation on the floor, is that NEPA is egregiously broken. The 
SPEED Act, which has been brought to the floor by the chairman, places 
commonsense caps on how long an EIS can take, and this amendment goes 
further to restrict what triggers this lengthy, onerous process.
  Under the current runaway practice, NEPA reviews delay reliable 
energy projects by 3.9 years. Think about that. Want to know why we 
have difficulty getting affordable energy? All of these reviews, all of 
this cumbersome process, has delayed the ability for people to come 
together and produce energy for themselves, the energy that allows us 
to be in a heated facility and lit and living and having the benefits 
of modern life and having hospitals powered and having cars that 
function and homes that are heated and cooled.

  You add this 4-year lengthy addition with an EIS, environmental 
impact statement, and you make it more difficult.
  America must be able to get energy projects up and running and on the 
grid if we are going to compete on the global stage and continue to be 
able to live the benefits of modern life. This amendment addresses the 
most onerous part of the currently bloated NEPA process.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, we have a major disagreement on what ``common 
sense'' means in this Congress.
  To me, and I think really to most Americans, it is just common sense 
that if you have a project that would destroy hunting access to some 
vital part of our public lands that generations have depended on, if 
you have a project that would cause a sacred Tribal site to no longer 
be enjoyed by folks who have depended on it for millennia, that that 
should undergo an environmental review. That seems like common sense to 
most people. But in this strange Congress, I guess common sense just 
means just do those projects anyway and don't even consider 
alternatives and don't even consider the impacts. That is why I oppose 
this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I will remind my colleagues that what this 
amendment does is defines a significant effect as having ``a proximate 
and concrete harm that is directly caused by the proposed agency action 
and that materially impairs human health or property,'' fairly common 
sense.
  Mr. Chair, in closing, I am going to take 30 seconds, a point of 
personal privilege here, to respond to something that the gentleman 
alluded to earlier in another exchange with another Member talking 
about so-called frivolous litigation by our current President.
  I find it absolutely extraordinary that in the same week that we 
found out that the FBI literally told higher-ups at the Department of 
Justice and the White House that there was not probable cause to engage 
in a raid at Mar-a-Lago on the former President of the United States, 
that we are somehow going to enter that fray and not acknowledge the 
extent to which the abuse of power and the abuse of authority by the 
Biden administration and by his Department of Justice was 
extraordinary, historic, corrupt, and worthy of note.

                              {time}  1100

  If my colleagues want to venture into a debate about lawfare, then we 
will be happy to talk about the Manhattan DA. We will be able to talk 
about Fani Willis. We will be happy to talk about Jack Smith. We will 
be happy to talk about Arctic Frost, not because we are happy that they 
occurred, but because the American people are offended about the 
assault on President Trump, on the Members of this body, and on the 
people of the United States.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thought we were debating a bill that 
proposes a permitting reform. Of course, we have lots of disagreements 
about how it impacts our bedrock environmental laws, but I guess we 
never want to miss an opportunity to go into the fever swamp of 
conspiracism that is the Kash Patel FBI these days.
  I will bring it back to the subject at hand.
  This is a bad amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Stauber) having assumed the chair, Mr. Evans of Colorado, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on

[[Page H6044]]

the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 4776) to amend the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 to clarify ambiguous provisions and facilitate a 
more efficient, effective, and timely environmental review process, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________