[House Report 119-351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-351
======================================================================
FULL RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPEDITED
ENFORCEMENT ACT
_______
October 28, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 689]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 689) to require each agency to
evaluate the permitting system of the agency, to consider
whether permitting by rule could replace that system, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Purpose of Legislation............................... 5
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 5
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 6
Legislative History.............................................. 7
Committee Consideration.......................................... 7
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 7
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 9
List of Related Committee Hearings............................... 9
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 9
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 9
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 9
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 10
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 10
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement........................... 10
Earmark Identification........................................... 10
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 10
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 12
Minority Views................................................... 13
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Full Responsibility and Expedited
Enforcement Act'' or the ``FREE Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Agencies near unanimously operate under a permitting
system that gives agencies broad discretion and requires the
Government to review each permitting application.
(2) Agencies near unanimously operate under a permitting
system that either does not have time constraints, or has time
constraints that agencies do not follow.
(3) The combination of broad discretion and the lack of time
constraints often results in a tedious, time consuming, and
often expensive permitting system for the Government and
applicants. Moreover, agencies will sometimes use their
discretion and the time consuming nature of permitting to stall
or discourage permit issuance.
(4) There is a compelling interest in avoiding unnecessary
delay and expense in Federal permitting.
(5) Permit by rule is a process that seeks to overcome agency
delay and the cumbersome cost of agency review to Government
and private interests.
(6) Permit by rule is a process of permitting that includes
specific written standards for obtaining a permit, a simple
requirement for an applicant to certify compliance with each of
the standards, and a streamlined approval process with a prompt
deadline for agency action on applications that only allows the
Government to verify that all conditions are met. The
Government retains the right and responsibility to audit and
enforce compliance with permitting requirements. Focusing upon
permittees who are violating the law or standards rather than
gatekeeping will make permitting more efficient while allowing
an agency to protect the compelling interests for which
permitting systems are intended.
SEC. 3. PERMITTING BY RULE.
(a) Office of Management and Budget Guidance.--Not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall issue a memorandum to the head of
each agency that establishes guidance for the implementation of the
requirements of this section, including on the meaning of the terms
``permitting by rule'' and ``permit''.
(b) Report to Congress Required.--
(1) Submission of report.--Not later than 240 days after the
date on which the guidance required under subsection (a) is
issued, the head of each agency shall submit to Congress,
including any committee of Congress with jurisdiction over
permits for that agency, and the Comptroller General a report
on the following:
(A) A list and description of each type of permit
issued by the agency.
(B) The statutory and regulatory requirements for
obtaining each such type of permit.
(C) For each type of permit issued by the agency, a
specific description of each step the agency follows to
review a permit application.
(D) For each type of permit issued by the agency, an
estimate of the time the agency typically takes to
review an application, beginning on the date on which
an application is submitted and ending on the date on
which a successful application is granted.
(E) For each type of permit issued by the agency, a
description of each action typically taken for a case
in which an application is found not to meet statutory
or regulatory requirements for the issuance of a
permit.
(F) A list of primary interests that each type of
permit is intended to foster or protect.
(G) An individual determination for each type of
permit issued by the agency of whether permitting by
rule could in whole or in part replace the current
system for issuing the type of permit.
(H) For each type of permit issued by the agency for
which permitting by rule could in whole or in part
replace the current system for issuing the type of
permit, an identification of any administrative or
other practical challenges the head of the agency
anticipates in transitioning to permitting by rule for
the type of permit.
(I) An identification of each type of permit for
which the head of the agency has determined the agency
could not reasonably, in whole or in part, issue
permits by rule under current facts and circumstances,
describing with particularity each reason why
permitting by rule could not reasonably be used for any
such permit and what legal or practical measures could
be pursued to eliminate or mitigate said reason.
(2) Public comment.--In preparing the report required
pursuant to paragraph (1), the head of an agency may solicit
and consider public comment regarding the report.
(3) Extension of submission deadline.--In the case that the
head of an agency is not able to submit the report required
pursuant to paragraph (1), the deadline to submit the report
shall be extended by an additional 90 days if the head of the
agency submits to Congress, including any committee of Congress
with jurisdiction over permits for that agency, and the
Comptroller General a notification of the intended extension of
the deadline under this paragraph.
(4) Attorney fees.--If the head of an agency does not file
the report required pursuant to paragraph (1) by the applicable
deadline under this subsection, the agency shall pay, from any
funds made available to the agency by appropriation or
otherwise, the attorney fees and costs of an applicant for a
claim filed by the applicant for the failure or delay of the
agency to take action with respect to an application for a
permit submitted to the agency by the applicant if--
(A) the claim is filed against the agency in an
appropriate United States district court during the
period beginning on the expiration of the applicable
deadline under this subsection and ending on the date
on which the agency files the report;
(B) the court determines that the agency unreasonably
delayed such action; and
(C) the applicant prevails in the claim.
(c) Establishment of Processes for Permitting by Rule.--
(1) Application for and approval of permits.--Not later than
12 months after the date on which the report is submitted
pursuant to subsection (b), for each type of permit issued by
the agency for which the head of the agency determined under
subsection (b)(1)(G) that permitting by rule could in whole or
in part replace the current system for issuing the type of
permit, the head of each agency shall establish by rule a
permitting by rule application process that does the following:
(A) Specifies in writing each requirement and
substantive standard that must be certified to be met
by an applicant who files an application to qualify for
a permit under permitting by rule.
(B) Allows an applicant to file an application that
contains only each required certification described in
subparagraph (A) and any supporting documentation the
applicant chooses to submit in support of each such
certification.
(C) Deems an application for a permit under
permitting by rule granted if--
(i) the application contains each
certification described in subparagraph (A);
and
(ii) a period of 180 days after the date on
which the completed application was submitted
has expired and the head of the agency has not
otherwise approved or disapproved the
application.
(2) Correction of application.--The head of an agency shall
contact an applicant within 7 days after the date on which an
application is submitted under paragraph (1) if any required
certification is missing from the application.
(3) Audit of application.--The head of an agency may audit an
application for a permit under permitting by rule and verify
certifications of compliance with requirements and substantive
standards for permitting by rule and may include reasonable
requests for documentation.
(4) Disapproval of application and enforcement.--
(A) Reason for disapproval.--The head of an agency
may only disapprove an application submitted for a
permit under permitting by rule if the head of the
agency identifies a requirement or substantive standard
described in paragraph (1)(A) that was not met by the
application, informs the applicant of how to correct
the application, provides a reasonable opportunity for
the applicant to make such correction before the final
action of the agency on the application, and states
with particularity in any final action disapproving the
application the facts and reasoning for such denial.
(B) Audit of compliance and enforcement following
grant of a permit under permitting by rule.--
(i) Audit.--The head of an agency may audit a
permit granted under permitting by rule and
verify compliance with requirements and
substantive standards for permitting by rule,
which may include reasonable requests for
documentation.
(ii) Enforcement.--The head of an agency may
require corrective action, suspend, or revoke a
permit granted under permitting by rule at any
time if the head of the agency finds that a
requirement or substantive standard under
permitting by rule is not being met by the
recipient of the permit.
(C) Direct appeal.--An applicant whose application
for a permit under permitting by rule is disapproved,
of whom corrective action is required under a permit
granted under permitting by rule, or whose permit
granted under permitting by rule is suspended or
revoked may appeal such disapproval, corrective action,
suspension, or revocation in an appropriate United
States district court.
(D) Burden of proof.--In an appeal under subparagraph
(C), the agency shall bear the burden of proof to show
that an application was lawfully disapproved or that
the agency lawfully required corrective action or
suspended or revoked a permit.
(E) Attorney fees.--If the court finds for the
applicant or permit holder under this paragraph and
that the agency was not substantially justified in
disapproving, requiring corrective action under,
suspending, or revoking a permit, the agency shall pay
the attorney fees and costs of the applicant from any
funds made available to the agency by appropriation or
otherwise.
(d) Congressional Oversight.--Not later than 2 years after the date
on which the report is submitted pursuant to subsection (b), the head
of each agency shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation
by the agency of permitting by rule for each type of permit issued by
the agency for which the head of the agency determined under subsection
(b)(1)(G) that permitting by rule could in whole or in part replace the
current system for issuing the type of permit.
(e) Concurrent Use of Previous Permitting System.--If the head of the
agency determines in the report submitted pursuant to subsection (b)
that the permitting system in effect at the agency before the date of
the enactment of this Act for any type of permit provides value that
permitting by rule does not, but that permitting by rule could in whole
or in part replace the current system for issuing the type of permit,
the head of the agency may maintain for that type of permit both the
permitting system previously in effect and permitting by rule, and the
applicant may choose which system to use to apply for a permit of that
type from the agency.
(f) Gao Reports.--
(1) Report on accuracy of agency reports.--Not later than 90
days after the expiration of the deadline to submit the reports
required under subsection (b), the Comptroller General shall
submit to Congress a report on the completeness and accuracy of
the reports, including the recommendations of the Comptroller
General concerning legal or practical measures that could be
pursued to eliminate or mitigate any legal or practical
challenges to the transition by agencies to permitting by rule
for any type of permit.
(2) Report on progress by agencies.--Not later than 180 days
after submission by the agencies of the reports required under
subsection (c), the Comptroller General shall submit to
Congress a report on the progress by agencies in the
implementation of this Act, including any recommendation
concerning legal or practical measures that could be pursued to
eliminate or mitigate any remaining legal or practical
challenges to the transition by agencies to issuance of permits
under permitting by rule for any type of permit.
(3) Supplements to the reports.--The Comptroller General may
submit supplements to the report described in paragraph (1) or
(2) with regard to a report submitted by the head of an agency
after the Comptroller General submits the report required
pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2).
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agency; rule.--The terms ``agency'' and ``rule'' have the
meaning given those terms in section 551 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Completed application.--The term ``completed
application'' means an application submitted under subsection
(c) that contains certifications that the applicant meets each
requirement and substantive standard specified under subsection
(c)(1)(A).
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(4) Permit.--The term ``permit'' has the meaning given the
term ``license'' in section 551 of title 5, United States Code,
and as further elucidated by the Director in the guidance
issued under subsection (a).
(5) Permitting by rule.--The term ``permitting by rule''
means the application process that an agency establishes by
rule for granting a certain type of permit described in
subsection (b), as further elucidated by the Director in the
guidance issued under subsection (a).
(6) Substantive standard.--The term ``substantive standard''
means all qualities, statuses, actions, benchmarks,
measurements, or other written descriptions that would qualify
a party to perform the permitted action.
Summary and Purpose of Legislation
H.R. 689, the ``Full Responsibility and Expedited
Enforcement Act'' or ``FREE Act'', streamlines federal
permitting government-wide by expanding use of permitting by
rule (PBR) rather than extensive case-by-case review of
individual permit applications. The FREE Act directs federal
agencies to evaluate their permitting systems and report to
Congress within 240 days, identifying for which types of
permits PBR can replace current systems and thoroughly
justifying any determinations that PBR cannot be used. Agencies
must then adopt PBR within 12 months for identified types of
permits. Under PBR, agencies must grant within 30 days all
applications for coverage under a permit-by-rule that meet
objective permit standards set forth in the applicable rule.
Agencies remain free to deny applications that do not meet
requirements in the rule and may verify compliance.
Background and Need for Legislation
The federal permitting process has long and justly been
criticized for being slow, expensive, and opaque. A recent
report by S&P Global, for example, found that developing a new
mine in the United States--from discovery to production--takes
on average nearly 29 years, the second longest in the world.\1\
This is but one example of the significant problems experienced
by many seeking permits from federal agencies for a variety of
purposes. Such delays hinder economic activity, stall project
implementation, and increase costs for both the government and
private entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\S&P Global, United States Ranks Next to Last in Development Time
for New Mines that Produce Critical Minerals for Energy Transition, S&P
Global Finds, PR Newswire, (Jul. 18, 2024), available at https://
press.spglobal.com/2024-07-18-United-States-Ranks-Next-to-Last-in-
Development-Time-for-New-Mines-that-Produce-Critical-Minerals-for-
Energy-Transition,-S-P-Global-Finds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the factors contributing to unnecessary delays in
federal permitting is the use of individual and often time-
consuming review of permit applications for activities that
share common features. By adopting a permitting by rule system
to address permitting of such activities, agencies can
significantly reduce these inefficiencies. Accordingly, the
FREE Act seeks to modernize the federal permitting process by
increasing the use of PBR across the federal government. PBR,
sometimes also referred to as general permitting, allows a
permitting agency to promulgate by regulation a permit for
widespread and common activities, such as for water discharges
related to home construction. Once a given PBR rule is
promulgated, permit applicants can obtain coverage under the
permit established by the rule by certifying that their
activities comply with the rule's requirements. Increased use
of PBR is long overdue in the federal government and promises
to ease the delay and expense that characterizes federal
permitting today.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
The short title is the ``Full Responsibility and Expedited
Enforcement Act'', or the ``FREE Act''.
Section 2. Findings
This section details findings of Congress supporting the
need for the legislation.
Section 3. Permitting by rule
Subsection (a) requires the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to issue implementing guidance to agencies within 120
days of enactment of this Act, including on the meaning of
certain terms in the bill.
Subsection (b) requires each federal agency to evaluate its
current permitting system and report to Congress within 240
days after the issuance of the OMB guidance issued under
subsection (a) to identify permits they administer, statutory
and regulatory requirements to obtain those permits, and
assessing the degree to which permitting by rule could replace
the current system. Authorizes agencies to solicit public
comment in preparing the report.
Subsection (b) requires agencies to establish, by rule, a
permit-by-rule application process within 12 months, for each
type of permit issued by the agency as identified in the report
required by subsection (a), under which applications are deemed
granted if they meet all requirements and are not approved or
denied within 180 days.
Agencies may contact applicants to correct missing
certifications that requirements are met.
Agencies may deny applications if requirements are not met,
audit for compliance, and require corrective action for granted
permits.
Provides for direct appeals in federal court for applicants
whose applications are denied or whose granted permits are
suspended. The agency shall bear the burden of proof in such
appeals.
Allows applicants who succeed on appeal to recover their
attorney fees from the permitting agency.
Subsection (c) requires agencies to report to Congress
within 2 years after the subsection (a) report on their
progress in transitioning to and implementing each type of
permit for which permit by rule is implemented under the Act.
Subsection (d) allows agencies to maintain both their
previous permitting systems and permitting by rule, allowing
applicants to choose which system to use in their individual
cases.
Subsection (e) requires the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to submit a report to Congress within 90 days on
agency compliance with the subsection (a) report to Congress,
including any legislative recommendations to enable agencies to
transition. Requires GAO to submit a similar report within 180
days on agency compliance with the subsection (c) transition
progress report to Congress.
Subsection (f) provides definitions for terms used in the
Act.
Subsection (g) provides for definitions for terms used in
the Act, including ``agency,'' ``rule,'' ``completed
application,'' ``Director,'' ``permit,'' ``permitting by
rule,'' and ``substantive standard.''
Legislative History
H.R. 689 was introduced on January 23, 2025, by
Representative Celeste Malloy (R-UT). The following
Representatives are cosponsors of the bill: Brad Finstad (R-
MN), Blake Moore (R-UT), David Valadao (R-CA), Jodey Arrington
(R-TX), Burgess Owens (R-UT), August Pfluger (R-TX), Juan
Ciscomani (R-AZ), Pete Stauber (R-MN), Michelle Fishbach (R-
MN), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Mike Collins (R-GA), Rudy Yakym (R-
IN), Vince Fong (R-CA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Russ Fulcher (R-ID),
Mike Kennedy (R-UT), Harriet Hageman (R-WY), and Jeff Hurd (R-
CO). Delegate James Moylan (R-GU) is also a cosponsor. The bill
was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform. The Committee held related hearings on February 26,
April 1, and April 29, 2025. The Committee considered H.R. 689
at a business meeting on May 21, 2025, and ordered the bill as
amended favorably reported by a recorded vote.
Committee Consideration
On May 21, 2025, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 689, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of
23-19, a quorum being present.
Roll Call Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following roll call vote
occurred during the Committee's consideration of H.R. 689:
A roll call vote was held on favorably reporting H.R. 689.
The bill was agreed to in a recorded vote of 23-19, a quorum
being present.
Explanation of Amendments
During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative
James Comer (R-KY), Chairman of the Committee, offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute that made a certain
technical change to the bill. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute passed by voice vote.
List of Related Committee Hearings
In accordance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6), (1) the
following hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 689:
On February 26, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Leading the Charge: Opportunities to Strengthen America's
Energy Reliability'' with Mr. Alex Epstein, President and
Founder, Center for Industrial Progress; Ms. Mandy Gunasekara,
former Chief of Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Mr. Alex Herrgott, Chief Executive Officer and President, the
Permitting Institute; Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director,
Climate and Energy Program, Union of Concerned Scientists.
(2) The following related hearing was held:
On April 1, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``America's AI Moonshot: The Economics of AI, Data Centers, and
Power Consumption'' with Mr. Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy,
the Abundance Institute; Mr. Josh Levi, President, Data Center
Coalition; Mr. Mark P. Mills, Executive Director, National
Center for Energy Analytics; and Mr. Tyson Slocum, Energy
Program Director, Public Citizen.
(3) The following related hearing was held:
On April 29, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Made in the USA: Igniting the Industrial Renaissance of the
United States'' with Mr. Kevin Czinger, Founder and Executive
Chairman, Divergent 3D; Mr. Chris Power, Founder and Chief
Executive Officer, Hadrian; Mr. Austin Bishop, Chief Executive
Officer, New American Industrial Alliance; and Dr. Adm S.
Hersh, Ph.D., Senior Economist, Economic Policy Institute.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the Background and Need for
Legislation section above.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals or objectives of this bill are to reduce unnecessary
burdens in and streamline the federal permitting process across
all federal agencies.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill does not relate to employment or access to public
services and accommodations in the legislative branch.
Duplication of Federal Programs
In accordance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision
of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement
Pursuant to section 5(b) of Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C.
1004(b)), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Committee
finds that this Committee Print does not direct the
establishment of an advisory committee.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 the Committee has included a letter received from the
Congressional Budget Office below.
Earmark Identification
This bill does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a cost
estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII, the cost
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is as follows:
H.R. 689 would require federal agencies to report to the
Congress on the permits that they issue and to assess the
feasibility of replacing current permitting processes with a
permitting-by-rule process, which would allow streamlined
permitting for applicants certifying that they have met
specific conditions. Agencies would have limited discretion to
deny applications under that new process.
The bill also would require the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), within 120 days of enactment, to issue guidance
on establishing permitting by rule. H.R. 689 would require
agencies to report to the Congress on their plans for
implementation and, within 12 months of reporting, establish
permitting-by-rule processes for eligible activities. The bill
also would require the Government Accountability Office to
evaluate and report on federal permitting systems.
Based on the cost of similar reporting requirements, CBO
anticipates that the workload of each of the 24 largest federal
agencies would increase by more than $500,000 over the 2026-
2030 period. We estimate that implementing those provisions
would cost $20 million over that period. Any related spending
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
How agencies would interpret and implement the bill's
requirements is uncertain. The bill would require OMB to define
what a permit is and would give agencies wide discretion to
determine which types of permits would qualify for permitting
by rule. CBO has no basis to estimate the specific processes
that agencies would consider to be subject to the bill's
requirements or suitable for permitting by rule.
Because the bill would not change agencies' legal
responsibilities and because each agency would determine which
processes to replace with permitting by rule, CBO expects that
enacting H.R. 689 would not significantly affect how agencies
implement permitting processes under current law. As a result,
we estimate that implementing the bill would have an
insignificant effect both on direct spending and on revenues
over the 2026-2035 period.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was reviewed by H.Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
The requirements of clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives do not apply to H.R. 689.
MINORITY VIEWS
Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 689, the Full Responsibility
and Expedited Enforcement Act. Federal agencies review permit
applications required for projects such as infrastructure,
transportation, energy, and mining. These agencies consider
important factors like public interest, pollution risks, and
whether the project would be a good use of our public lands.
This Act would allow corporations to pollute our waters and
lands for oil, gas, and mining projects.
This bill would prevent agencies from properly reviewing
permit applications by stripping agencies of the ability to do
a proper review of permit applications that they receive.
Rather than carefully reviewing permit applications on a case-
by-case basis, the agencies would have to create processes for
categorical approval if limited threshold standards are met.
The bill undermines public permitting review by favoring
corporate applicants over the expertise of the civil servants
who work to protect our lands and access to clean air and clean
water. For example, the bill would allow an applicant to skip
over the administrative appeal process and immediately sue the
federal government in U.S. District Court if a permit is denied
or if a permit holder's action is restricted for non-
compliance.
The bill also shifts the burden of proof onto the agency to
show that an applicant did not meet the already limited
standards, rather than requiring an applicant to prove that it
did meet those standards.
The bill further empowers corporate polluters and
discourages federal enforcement actions by requiring agencies
to pay for the attorney fees of a permit holder or applicant
that prevails under the completely skewed legal framework under
the bill.
Most alarmingly, this permit-by-rule system would eliminate
any opportunity for the public to weigh in on permit
applications through a notice-and-comment period, as is
currently standard for most permits. This would prevent the
communities who would be directly affected by permitted
projects from having their voices heard, even when their land
could be taken or their water polluted.
We must maintain federal agencies' ability to thoroughly
review permit applications to ensure that all proper measures
are taken to protect our lands, air, and water under the rule
of law.
Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member.