▶ 0:08:13Presence of a quorum. Pursuant to committee rules, members of the committee may submit written opening statements for the record, ask that members may revise and extend their remarks on the bills to be considered at this markup, and have those remarks included in the record without objection, so ordered pursuant to committee rule three, I announce that we may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 0:08:40I want to take a moment to welcome our representative, adelita grijalva, uh, to our committee, uh, for your first meeting today here on the committee of the house natural resources. Uh, your father served this committee very honorably for many years. I had the pleasure of sitting beside him, and I know he would be proud of of you coming in and, uh, filling his seat. And I yield a minute to Mr. huffman.
▶ 0:09:12>> and I thank the chairman. I, too, am really delighted to have adelita grijalva join us here in the natural resources committee. Um, she, of course, will bring her own voice and her own talents to this work. But I think when we see her dedication, when we see her passion for the environment and environmental justice and so many other values that her dad, uh, just embodied, I think we'll know where where that came from. Uh, and that's going to be very heartwarming.
▶ 0:09:38I can't think of any member who's ever brought more change within hours of their arrival in the congress than adelita grijalva. So welcome. >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Buenos dias. Good morning. You know, I was. >> greeted. >> I apologize. >> we're not. We're going to move on with business. >> there they go again. There they go again. >> shutting you down.
▶ 0:10:01Good morning and thank you for joining us today for our full committee markup. Today, the committee will consider several bills to clarify and modernize federal permitting law. In 1969, congress passed the national environmental policy act. With the best of intentions. It directed federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major federal actions.
▶ 0:10:23Over the past five decades, however, the law has been twisted into a bureaucratic bottleneck that delays investments in the infrastructure and technologies that make our economy run. Even the word nepa today has become more synonymous with red tape than environmental protection. As we heard at a full committee hearing in september. The strongest case for for reforming nepa is the reality on the ground.
▶ 0:10:47The first trump administration found that the average nepa environmental impact statement from 2013 to 2018 totaled 575 pages and took 4.7 years to complete. A quarter of them took six years or more, a glacial pace that cost the economy billions of dollars every year. And what do what reward do project sponsors get upon completing this slog? They're usually hit with frivolous litigation immediately, which further delays project completion.
▶ 0:11:17In fact, on average, it takes over four years to resolve nepa related litigation on eis. This claim. These claims impact all kinds of projects. For instance, between 2010 and 2018, 64% of solar energy projects faced litigation. 32% of those litigated were ultimately canceled.
▶ 0:11:39Nepa is the nation's most litigated environmental statute, and according to the breakthrough institute, just ten organizations are responsible for 35% of all those lawsuits. Nepa abuse is strangling critical public and private investments in infrastructure, defense, energy, and mining at a moment when we can least afford it. The us economy's demand for energy driven by ai computing, is set to rise sharply in the coming years, by one estimate increasing by 35 to 50% by 2040.
▶ 0:12:12Data centers could triple their energy consumption by 2028. Meanwhile, the united states is unnervingly reliant on china for minerals critical to both high tech military equipment and everyday civilian goods. Yet today, thanks in part to nepa, it takes 29 years to get an american mine up and running. As committee members know, we have viable domestic deposits of the critical minerals that we need.
▶ 0:12:39Permitting delays cannot be the reason we fall behind our chief global rivals. And so for the first bill we will consider today, uh, we would restore nepa to its original aim robust, informed and intentional decision making that drives economic development. The standardizing, permitting and expediting economic development, or speed act would tackle a number of problems at the heart of nepa dysfunction that is present today.
▶ 0:13:09It would restrict nepa lawsuits to parties actually impacted by project and establish reasonable filing deadlines. Additionally, it would codify key aspects of the supreme court's unanimous seven county ruling clarifying judicial review in nepa cases. It would align judicial remedies with the fact that nepa is a procedural statute.
▶ 0:13:31The bill also provides federal agencies with clarity about what they should examine in the review process, and ensures that projects have a real federal nexus for nepa to be triggered. The speed act is project neutral. This is very important. It will provide clear rules and a level playing field for federal projects across all agencies and industries. It enjoys bipartisan sponsorship and the support of more than 325 industry associations, businesses and trade groups.
▶ 0:14:01And I'm happy to say, from all 50 states across our great country, I was pleased to work with my colleagues across the aisle to improve this legislation. We've made this a better bill for all of america. I want to thank Mr. golden for his partnership on this timely, critical legislation. In addition to the speed act today, we'll also take up two other nepa related bills. Congressman yoakam's, h.r.
▶ 0:14:25573, requiring a new annual report on nepa projects from the council on environmental quality and congressman dusty johnson's h.r. 4503, which would direct federal agencies to adopt electronic permitting systems. Finally, we will consider five additional unanimous consent bills on which we have reached bipartisan agreement. I look forward to our discussions today, and I yield back. I recognize ranking member huffman for an opening statement. >> thank you very much, Mr.
▶ 0:14:55Chairman. I, uh, I can't just acquiesce to this false narrative that nepa is this well-intended thing that has ballooned into a monstrosity that does so much harm, and patting it on the head and saying, it's well-intended. We just have to completely dismantle and deconstruct it. This is a very, very important, bedrock environmental law that does a lot of good. That helps major federal actions get it right.
▶ 0:15:23And we're going to be pushing back on this false narrative in the course of this debate. Now, there's always room to improve process, to improve any law on the books. But this strawman that you have built nepa into is disingenuous and false. And we will not acquiesce to that false narrative. Now, I am glad, Mr. chairman, that, uh, the first committee markup is happening after the longest shutdown in american history.
▶ 0:15:51Uh, speaker johnson's decision to keep the house on paid vacation for six weeks is not the only thing that republicans have been shutting down, uh, in this legislative session, of course, there's also been an attempt to shut out adelita grijalva from joining us in the ranks of the congress. Uh, there has been an attempt, thankfully, a failed attempt to shut down scrutiny into the epstein files. Uh, but there's another big one that we have to talk about.
▶ 0:16:20Uh, if we're going to have a serious conversation about energy permitting or energy policy. And that is the fact that wind and solar projects across this country are being shut down by this administration with the approval of congressional republicans. We can't ignore that. It is an essential part of the context for any serious conversation in this space.
▶ 0:16:42Now, uh, if president trump and secretary burgum weren't illegally blocking wind and solar projects right now, firing, permitting staffs, cutting funding for agencies, we'd be having a very different conversation about permitting legislation. And before republicans start in with the what about isms, let me be very clear. Democrats have never blocked fossil fuel projects the way the trump administration is blocking wind and solar.
▶ 0:17:08But if this is the new normal, folks, um, I've been taking notes. All right. Just remember, you started it. You'll hear a lot from democrats today about the need for clean, cheap energy, electricity that wind and solar and batteries can deliver day and night. American families are struggling right now to make ends meet. Trump's tariffs have raised prices on everything.
▶ 0:17:33Millions of americans are about to lose affordable health care because republicans don't have a plan to fix the crisis that they set in motion. The last thing our constituents need right now is higher utility bills, because president trump wants to stop new transmission lines and shut down an entire sector of clean energy that can help us deliver cheap, affordable electricity. Republicans should hate blocking any form of generation.
▶ 0:18:00If you truly believe your talking points about beating china in the race for ai, about the importance of meeting this new demand for energy, and so do my colleagues on the other side of the dais, um, who are maybe starting to figure out that donald trump is not always right, as you have watched him be terribly wrong on the epstein files, as you've watched him be terribly, terribly wrong on redistricting and this race to the bottom that he set in motion. He's not always right.
▶ 0:18:29And so I'm going to urge my colleagues across the aisle to summon your independence, summon a little bit of courage once again this week, and push back on this president when he is terribly wrong and he is terribly wrong on clean energy right now. You change the president's mind on the epstein files or, well, the public changed his mind. Although we all know he's not going to comply with this law that he's pretended to sign, but we can still push back and we should push back on this war on clean energy.
▶ 0:18:58While the house was out of session this fall, democrats met with companies and organizations across the spectrum to discuss this legislation. Mr. westerman speed act the american petroleum institute was probably surprised that I wanted to hear their perspective on this issue, but I believe in genuine engagement on issues and it was helpful to hear that. Just as helpful to hear also from the views of fenceline communities that live in the shadows of refining plants.
▶ 0:19:27And across these conversations, there was agreement that nepa provides important benefits, benefits that force the federal government to take a hard look and carefully consider alternatives and impacts, benefits that provide transparency. Benefits that provide community input and engagement. These are important pillars of nepa that unfortunately are undermined, uh, in deeply disturbing ways by the legislation before us today.
▶ 0:19:56We'll be talking about it more as we go forward, Mr. chairman, but unfortunately, the speed act gets it wrong. Uh, with that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. And pursuant to the markup notice is now in order to consider h.r. 4776, the standardizing, permitting and expediting economic development act, or the speed act. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? Mr.
▶ 0:20:26Huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, as I mentioned, over the last several months, my team and I have been meeting with all types of stakeholders from clean energy developers and fossil fuel producers to mining companies, construction companies, environmental non-profits, environmental justice champions and tribal organizations. We've started these conversations in the same way.
▶ 0:20:52I will start this one by going back to basics and reminding everyone what nepa actually is, what it does. Nepa is a tool that we use to ensure that federal decisions get it right, that they are grounded in science, transparent to the public, and protect and involve communities most impacted by those decisions. Pretty much everyone agrees with those principles. We talked to stakeholders about how, over the last several years, the landscape has been changing very fast.
▶ 0:21:21We have the fiscal responsibility act, which implemented new timelines that are just now hitting the two year mark. Supreme court, of course, with its seven county infrastructure decision and the trump administration gutting, uh, sick. And it's unifying regulations, not to mention the firing and the forced retirements of permitting staff, some of whom are just coming back from furlough. So it is nothing short of chaos.
▶ 0:21:45And in the face of all that, uh, republicans on this committee have just refused to do any oversight. Uh, you should be asking, how is all that working? How is it playing out so that we can have a clear eyed understanding of what it means to move deeper into this so-called reform, but instead, you have us speeding ahead with a major overhaul of nepa, with repercussions that most members of this committee, let alone the public, don't even understand.
▶ 0:22:14Let's just take one example, Mr. chairman. The speed act would waive projects from review because they receive federal grants. Now, that may sound like sort of a modest common sense thing. It's just money, right? But I wonder, Mr. chairman, when I yield and you have your time, if you could tell us how many projects that would exclude each year, because that answer would surprise a lot of people, maybe you could tell us what types of projects that would be excluded.
▶ 0:22:45That's very important. Would it, for example, exclude the department of transportation from being the lead agency for nepa reviews of highway projects since the action that currently triggers nepa review for highway projects is funding federal funding, there's lots of projects that would be exempted from nepa if this seemingly innocuous rule took effect.
▶ 0:23:08We probably ought to understand those consequences and think about them, because the experts that we've spoken to do think that this bill will upend the permitting review process that the department of transportation has honed over decades. I fear there may be more changes in the speed act that might seem small, but have wide ranging and detrimental ripple effects. And to the extent there are real problems to be solved, this bill doesn't get us there.
▶ 0:23:35In fact, it could make things worse for some developers while also blinding the federal government to harms of bad projects. That's a lose lose proposition, and it intentionally blinds agencies to the information they need to make durable decisions.
▶ 0:23:50It narrows analysis so severely that agencies could be forced to approve projects without any real understanding of the impacts or risks of those projects, setting developers up for legal vulnerability, community backlash, costly delays it'll get you through or around the nepa process, I suppose. Faster. Uh, but what lies on the other side could be a train wreck.
▶ 0:24:14This bill's solution to all of these things is to simply let bad, erroneous, or even illegal projects just move ahead without any type of accountability. The judicial review section is so severe, I believe the federal government's analysis is going to be little, little more than a checked box on an industry branded docusign document, uh, that pretty much no one could ever challenge in a meaningful way.
▶ 0:24:42And so even if your lawsuit got through because you were smart enough and vigilant enough to demonstrate immediate harm on something that you would specifically commented about in this narrowed public review process, and you sued within 150 days. That action still can proceed, and nothing can stop it. Under this bill as written now in our meetings, we heard a real hunger for bipartisan permitting reform. This bill is not it.
▶ 0:25:09This bill is so extreme that there's simply nothing left in a meaningful way of nepa. If this were to become law. Now, democrats are very interested in working constructively in problem solving. We would love to have a meaningful conversation, but it has to start with ending the war on clean energy, which this bill does not do in any significant way. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Mr. stauber, you're recognized.
▶ 0:25:40>> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of h.r. 4776, which I am proud to co-sponsor. I want to begin by commending you, Mr. chairman, as well as my good friend and democrat colleague, representative golden, for developing a bipartisan, sensible, balanced permitting reform package that will allow us to build all kinds of important projects around the united states.
▶ 0:26:06I think we can all agree that our permitting system is broken and has been broken for a long while. It's almost as if our permitting system is designed to block projects rather than build them. This is something that I think all my colleagues can agree with on both sides of the aisle. This should be we should be able to agree on this bipartisan piece of legislation. The bill before us today is not designed to cut corners or weaken or permitting or weaken our permitting system.
▶ 0:26:35It doesn't weaken substantive environmental standards like the clean water act, clean air act or endangered species act, which are the basis of environmental protection here in the united states of america. This legislation is simply meant to address nepa, which I would like to remind my colleagues, is a process statute. Nepa has been weaponized for over a half a century, virtually from day one.
▶ 0:27:04In fact, the first lawsuit utilized to block a project, nepa, was filed a mere few weeks after the statute was signed into law. The bill before us today is meant to streamline the nepa process and close the loopholes that are constantly used to block good projects, projects that we need to modernize our infrastructure, ensure we have clean water, generate the energy that drives our economy, access the critical minerals we need to compete on the world stage, and so much more.
▶ 0:27:34I don't think a day goes by where I don't hear from a constituent about their permitting woes, and I figure, and I figure that's the case for most of my colleagues here today in northern minnesota, the issue of permitting is particularly acute.
▶ 0:27:46Not only is our broken permitting system being used to block important critical mineral mining projects like twin metals, new range or talon, but it's being used to block simple core infrastructure projects that we can all agree on, like water infrastructure or roads and bridges in northern minnesota. Our cold winters lead us to having a short construction window, much shorter than the rest of the country.
▶ 0:28:11When a water infrastructure project or road or bridge project gets delayed and they miss that construction window, it delays the projects months and adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the project cost. You know who pays those extra costs? The local taxpayers. Not those who are weaponizing loopholes and are permitting system to block these necessary projects. Our constituents have had to deal with the shortfalls of our broken permitting system for far too long, and it's about time we address it.
▶ 0:28:41I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Miss hageman or miss randall? You're recognized. Thank you. >> thank you so much, Mr. chair. I want to start by saying that I agree that a conversation about permitting reform is long overdue.
▶ 0:29:09Communities across the country, including those in my district, have felt the consequences of a permitting process that is far from predictable. Projects in my district have suffered from delays and uncertainty that undermines local development, infrastructure needs and economic opportunity. That said, any conversation we have regarding the permitting process needs to be had grounded in a shared commitment to improving outcomes to the people we represent.
▶ 0:29:37I believe that everyone here wants to see permits processed more quickly, so that our districts are able to receive the investments that they need and that they deserve, and I'm invested in engaging across the aisle with colleagues from every corner in the country to find a policy solution that addresses the concerns in my communities and in yours. But the trump administration has not shown itself to be a good faith governing partner.
▶ 0:30:03This administration has recklessly decimated agencies. Tens of thousands of federal workers have lost their jobs for politically motivated reasons, and those who are still here go to work every day in fear that this could be their last day.
▶ 0:30:21Over $4 billion of congressionally appropriated funds illegally clawed back, including intentionally targeting clean energy projects, including in my state, and a levee project to keep two entire cities from flooding. That is no longer the priority of this administration, because fema would rather be rounding up people from department of homeland security, would rather be rounding up people from the streets.
▶ 0:30:48The trump administration has acted recklessly and dishonestly in revoking a permits and grants that would have helped much needed infrastructure be built in our districts. A hydrogen hub in my community, green energy projects in states like wyoming and oklahoma that would bring good paying jobs to the districts.
▶ 0:31:13Now, the trump administration's choices and decisions are driving up energy costs for everyone in washington state, families utility costs have gone up by 13% under this administration, and gutting agencies that process permits while simultaneously gutting bedrock environmental policy does not bring us any closer to a genuine solution to our energy challenges.
▶ 0:31:39Nor does advancing a bill that doesn't include safeguards to ensure clean energy will benefit from any proposed reforms. Tribes across the nation, including the 12 tribes in the district I represent, need people in this room today to increase government accountability and encourage more public input when it comes to decisions that impact their land, water and natural resources.
▶ 0:32:01I'm committed to working on a real solution that addresses staffing shortages, tribal concerns, and does not favor oil and gas companies that continue to pollute our communities. Thank you, Mr. chair. I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes miss hagerman for five minutes. >> Mr. chairman, as a proud co-sponsor of the speed act, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
▶ 0:32:26The bill before us today is a much needed effort by congress to modernize a statute, bringing it from the 1970s into the 21st century. In the absence of congressional action, our nation's permitting structure has been, morphing from what congress intended nepa to do and to mean, and being replaced by what agencies and courts want it to do and to mean.
▶ 0:32:54This situation has wreaked havoc on the us permitting system. The very reason that seven counties went to the supreme court for much needed relief. It is very clear from the supreme court's decision that seven counties was absolutely correct in the manner in which administrative agencies and courts had been misinterpreting and misapplying nepa for literally decades.
▶ 0:33:16The modernization that we are pursuing adheres to the purely procedural nature of nepa to require project specific focus, and which provides reasonable judicial review, and it will move the united states much closer to a functioning permitting system, thereby ensuring that we are able to pursue development and projects to make everyone's lives better.
▶ 0:33:41To state it bluntly, there is absolutely no reason a much needed rail project should fail simply because the project opponents don't like the commodity that would be shipped on that rail line, and the fact that nepa could be distorted to actually further such an agenda tells you how far off the rails the courts have become. That was it was never intended. Nepa was never intended to be used that way. And congress is. It is time for congress to act.
▶ 0:34:13The supreme court recently held in seven counties, which the speed act will clarify and codify the way that nepa was always intended to operate. This approach provides stability and certainty, both of which are needed to meet the ever growing energy needs of our country to win the ai race, to update and expand our infrastructure, and much more. The speed act is designed to ensure that we can build the infrastructure and develop the energy we need to power this country.
▶ 0:34:43It is project agnostic and one of the rare examples where washington, D.C. is not selecting winners and losers, but rather making structural updates that bring benefits across every important sector that americans rely on. Well, there are so many provisions in this bill of which I am supportive. I want to briefly highlight the reforms to the cooperating agency process. The provisions in here balance the need for speed with legitimate local cooperation, a balance that is strongly valued in the state of wyoming.
▶ 0:35:13And just so everyone knows, wyoming wants infrastructure projects and to pursue energy projects that actually work and that actually produce energy. We don't want our state to be turned into an industrial zone covered with windmills and solar panels. In wyoming, our county commissioners and their joint association do an incredible job participating as cooperating agency.
▶ 0:35:36And this effort takes on even more importance when their participation shows how a rogue administration, such as the biden administration, has manipulated locally and nationally applicable regulations for nefarious climate change agendas at the expense of the regulated community. I want to thank you, Mr. chairman, for your leadership on the speed act. We have a great work product here and one that is rightfully bipartisan.
▶ 0:36:04And I'm hoping that when it comes to the floor, we will have even more folks join us from the other side. I urge all of my colleagues to support modernizing nepa through the speed act, and with that, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. curry? Mr. gray for california. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:36:28The california state water project members, one of the greatest water infrastructure accomplishments of the last hundred years. And it resulted in the development of the most productive and greatest agricultural valley in the world. Like many parts of the country, however, california has failed to maintain and expand a once remarkable system.
▶ 0:36:55If we funded every proposed water project in the central valley of california this year, we would be a decade away from seeing a final product. The current permitting process can take anywhere from several months to years, as agencies sit on applications. This causes significant delays in not only approval, but initiation.
▶ 0:37:17In my district, water contractors and operators are investing millions of dollars in expanding water infrastructure projects to protect our farmers. A perfect example is the los angeles or los banos creek detention project in merced county, which expands an existing reservoir to allow for storage, groundwater recharge, and conveyance. This non-controversial project is expected to take only six months to build.
▶ 0:37:44It was first proposed in 2012, when I was the first elected to the state legislature. Construction began this year in 2025. No project, especially one that is widely supported and non-controversial, should require over ten years of paperwork. Some solutions are complicated, but some don't have to be.
▶ 0:38:07For example, no applicant should have to wait more than two months upon submitting an application to have the review process begin. The speed act fixes this by setting a 60 day timeline to notify an applicant if their application is complete, and to begin the process. Additionally, this legislation on the back end requires agencies to issue a final decision 30 days after completing an environmental document.
▶ 0:38:37Now, I know it sounds absurd that congress needs to legislate agencies to move permits in such an efficient manner through the nepa process, but this illustrates the seriousness of the problem. The process that we set up should ensure high quality projects not be a tool to delay or stop projects. I want to thank chairman westerman for working with me to include common sense timeline language that would force agencies to move quickly on decisions and reviews.
▶ 0:39:05The speed act is a good first step for accountability, transparency and enforceable timelines to actually deliver projects for the american people. We need similar, similar legislation to address projects subject to other substantive reviews, including the endangered species act, the clean water act.
▶ 0:39:26If we fail to deliver on comprehensive across the board permitting reform, the american people will continue to lose faith in our ability to govern and our ability to build. I look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to ensure quality projects aren't held up by the bureaucracy and can be completed in a reasonable timeframe. Thank you, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 0:39:55Is there further discussion, Mr. begich? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Alaska may be the state with the largest landmass, but we also face some of the longest, slowest and most unpredictable federal permitting processes anywhere in the country. And when permitting breaks down, it threatens our ability to develop energy, build roads, maintain critical minerals production, and even provide basic modern infrastructure for our rural communities.
▶ 0:40:24That's why meaningful permitting reform is not a partizan issue for alaskans. It is a survival issue. And it is why the speed act is so important. This legislation restores nepa to what congress intended a procedural statute that requires agencies to take a hard look at environmental effects, but does not serve as a vehicle for federal agencies to impose policy preferences or de facto vetoes. Clarifying nepa's purpose is foundational.
▶ 0:40:54It gives agencies confidence and direction, and it gives project applicants predictability. The bill also provides genuine efficiency by ending duplicative reviews. Alaska's already has a strong state level environmental set of laws, and when the federal government requires a second, nearly identical analysis, it adds years to projects unnecessarily.
▶ 0:41:17The speed act allows federal agencies to treat compliance, state, tribal, or other federal processes as equivalent to nepa when appropriate, saving time and taxpayer resources without sacrificing environmental protections. That matters immensely for alaska's energy industry, our emerging critical minerals sector, and for major energy and transportation corridors in my state.
▶ 0:41:39Another critical reform in this bill is refocusing environmental documents on effects that are actually caused by the project, not speculative or far removed impacts. Too often, agencies get pulled into issues that are separate in time or place, ballooning eis into thousands of pages. That doesn't help the environment, and it certainly doesn't help the public understand what's truly at stake. The speed act restores discipline to that process.
▶ 0:42:06Timeline certainty is another area where alaska has been desperately seeking reform. The bill requires agencies to make completeness determinations quickly, to decide the appropriate level of review within 60 days, and to issue a final decision within 30 days of finishing the environmental document. And importantly, if agencies want to extend a review timeline, they now have to obtain the consent of the project applicant.
▶ 0:42:31That is essential in a state where missing a seasonal window can cost an entire year or more of progress on a project. The bill also strengthens the use of programmatic documents and previously completed environmental reviews. In a place like alaska, where similar types of infrastructure are often built in comparable conditions. Being able to rely on earlier nepa work, rather than being forced to reinvent the wheel each time, is a huge efficiency gain. Another major piece of the speed act is litigation reform.
▶ 0:43:01The bill makes clear that courts must provide deference to federal agencies in evaluating environmental effects, consistent with recent case law. It limits the ability of courts to vacate decisions over procedural deficiencies, remand, not project killing injunctions, becomes the default, and lawsuits must be timely. Brought within 150 days and filed by people with a genuine substantive stake, not anonymous template commenters. These reforms don't weaken environmental protections.
▶ 0:43:30They preserve those environmental protections while stopping abuses that have turned nepa into a never ending litigation machine. The bill also contains important provisions for tribes in alaska. We have 229 federally recognized tribes, and many are driving innovative resource and infrastructure projects. The speed act creates a presumption against the no action alternative.
▶ 0:43:53When tribes seek to use their own resources respecting tribal sovereignty and reducing unnecessary obstacles to development on tribally controlled lands. And finally, the expedited judicial timelines ensure that when litigation does occur, it concludes within months rather than years. For alaska, where capital investment depends on certainty. That is a transformative change. Mr. chairman, the speed act is comprehensive, thoughtful and grounded in decades of real world experience with how nepa actually functions on the ground.
▶ 0:44:23This bill does not weaken environmental stewardship. It strengthens it by making the process more clear, more predictable, and more focused on genuine impacts for alaska's economy and for our energy future, for our communities, and for the responsible development of our natural resources. This legislation is absolutely essential. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the speed act, and I look forward to it advancing today. And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Mr. magaziner, you're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 0:44:53>> thank you. Chairman. We must make it easier to build more in this country and bring down the cost of energy. If there is one message americans are trying to send to their elected officials, it is that costs are too high. President trump's tariffs have driven up the cost of food and household items. The failure to extend the affordable care act tax credits is driving up the cost of health insurance for millions of americans, and the cost of energy continues to rise as well.
▶ 0:45:23So I've been clear about the fact that I am very interested in permitting reform to make it easier to get more energy onto the grid and help lower costs for consumers. But we cannot ignore the context that we are operating under. The trump administration has launched a full scale attack on american clean energy, canceling fully approved authorizations and indefinitely holding up approvals for projects in the pipeline.
▶ 0:45:50The trump administration is putting culture wars ahead of lowering energy costs for the american people, unleashing american energy means unleashing all of it, including affordable, clean energy, allowing fair competition and allowing ratepayers to have access to the most competitive and cheapest source of energy, even if it's clean energy.
▶ 0:46:14So in order for me to vote for this bill, I need strong language to ensure that the trump administration cannot continue to unfairly block clean energy projects from getting to the grid. Mr. chairman, I appreciate our back and forth and your willingness to have a conversation with many of us on this matter, but unfortunately, I'm concerned that the bill in front of us today does not do enough to stop the administration's war on clean energy.
▶ 0:46:42Today, I'll offer a series of amendments to restore the ability to to reverse the ability of the administration to discriminate against clean energy projects, to ensure that approved projects that have been revoked since the beginning of the trump administration can get back on track, and to tighten up some of the nepa reform language to ensure that environmental reviews maintain their integrity.
▶ 0:47:08If my amendments are adopted, I will vote to report this bill out of committee. But I cannot, in good faith, vote for a product that allows the administration's the trump administration's cost increasing war on clean energy to continue. I understand the view of the chairman, and I'm sure many of our colleagues on the other side that this bill is a is technology neutral when it comes to streamlining, permitting, and in a strict sense, it is.
▶ 0:47:37But the trump administration is not behaving in a technology neutral manner. And until we correct that problem, I fear that our shared goal for bipartisan permitting reform will remain out of reach. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Mr. benson recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And thank you for all of your work. Mr.
▶ 0:48:02Golden's work on this bill, it's it's it's one of the most important bills that we'll be dealing with. And I'm, I'm hopeful that that it will retain its bipartisan, um, form as, as we, as we proceed. And as I was reviewing this bill last night, I was struck by how how much care has been taken in attempting to address really, really difficult issues and the balance between environment, on the one hand, and our activity as a society, activities as a
▶ 0:48:33Society on the other. And I think you've I think you've done a really, really good job in this space. I am struck by the all of us and Mr. making these remarks a few minutes ago about affordability. And if there's one common theme, it's that we've got to make things more affordable. We have to and there's lots of other things going on in this space.
▶ 0:48:53But one thing that we all know, we have to do a better job of delivering things that drive down, cost faster, more effectively and in a more balanced way. And I just want to call out a few things. I'm going to call out higher utility bills, and I would just say that there is a power line that's being built across my district. Uh, the power line 19 years to get this power line started.
▶ 0:49:2019 years, at least seven of those years were driven by delays in nepa. We so what people want to know why we're having higher electrical costs is because in significant part of nepa, higher freight bills, no one seems to want to talk about the fact that we don't have roads and bridges. We're not going to have the ability to deliver stuff that needs that people need in the grocery stores.
▶ 0:49:44And those higher freight bills are being driven in significant part by nepa because of the delays in trying to build our freeways. Uh, I, I'm from oregon, so I just want to talk about timber removal. We have enormous amounts of timber in oregon, and a lot of it's been burning up. And why? Because we can't get in to the woods because of nepa. So, people, we all agree on the fact that we need to do these things.
▶ 0:50:13And this law is being used as a means of stopping activities that must be happening if we're going to protect the people of the united states. I just want to talk about smoke for a moment and the cost of smoke to individuals in oregon. The the smoke from these fires damaged grapes. And as a result, there was a lawsuit filed against pacific core. A pacific core then settled a lawsuit with the vineyards for $125 million.
▶ 0:50:40Now, the hope would be that that wouldn't be passed on just to the consumer. But I'm going to guess that in one way or another, it will make its way back to the consumer, to the ratepayer. Okay, well, why wasn't the fuel removed from the forest? And the answer again would be nepa. I have seen these plans for timber sales that that the forest service and the bureau of land management have literally spent years designing, because they're trying to anticipate the impossible.
▶ 0:51:10That is the subjective analysis then applied by a court, contrary to what the ranking member is suggesting, judicial review should not be a normal thing. It should. It should not be anticipated in every time event. It's not right that we would say, well, we're going to go through this process, then we're going to go to court. That is wrong. And so to the extent that that we can avoid that, we should. And I think this bill goes in a long way in that in that direction. I just want to say, Mr.
▶ 0:51:38Chair, I deeply appreciate the work that you and, and, uh, and the Mr. golden and others have done on this bill. It's a it's an absolute essential effort. I appreciate it. I urge everyone to vote yes for it. Thank you. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion, miss malloy? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you for taking on such a sensitive topic and such a thoughtful way.
▶ 0:52:05I know anytime we're talking about any of the legacy environmental bills, uh, people have very strong reactions to that. But I've spent a lot of my career as an attorney, as a staffer, and as a member of congress helping taxpayers work through the processes that are required to get projects done. And as a member of congress, I've heard from a lot of local governments and small businesses that what they need from us more than anything is certainty.
▶ 0:52:35They need to be able to plan for the future, and nepa has become the antithesis of certainty. It is a procedural statute that has turned into a series of roadblocks that create, uh, time delays and increased costs and prevent governments and businesses from having the certainty they need to be able to invest.
▶ 0:52:59The supreme court even agreed with that this year with the seven counties decision, when they limited the scope of nepa as a recognition that we have been frivolously wasting taxpayer dollars on things that just take up time, even on projects that are uncontroversial, where people largely agree they need to be done, we're making them cost more because of the process. So thank you for taking this on.
▶ 0:53:26I say all the time because I believe it's true that we can make good environmental decisions without frivolously wasting time and money, and much of it is taxpayer time and money. So thank you for the speed act that addresses these important concerns and does it in a bipartisan manner. And with that I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. hurd, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:53:55I support the speed act because it. >> fixes something that everyone back home understands. It takes too long to build anything in this country. Roads, water infrastructure, power lines, housing, energy projects, you name it. When it takes a decade just to get a permit, families pay more and america falls behind. The federal nepa environmental review process was never intended to be a climate policy.
▶ 0:54:20It was never intended to be a litigation strategy for stopping reasonable projects that promote economic growth. It was meant to ensure that agencies look before they act. Instead, it's become a system that stalls, projects and gives an advantage to foreign competitors, especially china. The speed act restores common sense. It focuses reviews on real impacts, not speculative ones.
▶ 0:54:46It stops crippling lawsuits and the endless chase for new studies. It respects state and tribal reviews, and it brings discipline and predictability to the process so that projects can move forward. This is not about weakening environmental protections. It's about ending unreasonable delays so that states can actually build the things they need. I know many of my democratic colleagues are frustrated by this, too.
▶ 0:55:13Both sides agree that america has to build again. This bill is a practical step forward toward a faster, more reliable system for projects not just in colorado but nationwide. If we want to lower energy costs, secure critical minerals, build reliable transmission lines and compete with china, we cannot issue permits for major projects on a timeline that is measured in decades.
▶ 0:55:42This speed act is balanced reform, and it's long overdue. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself for five minutes, and I want to say that since this committee's legislative hearing on the speed act in september, the momentum behind bipartisan nepa reform has continued to build.
▶ 0:56:09I want to say a special thank you to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Uh, you know, the purpose of a hearing is to discover and to, uh, look at areas that need strengthened. And we've got, uh, comments and feedback from both republicans and democrats. Mr. magaziner, miss elfreth, uh, Mr. gray and Mr. golden in particular, have been very engaged in working on solutions. As Mr.
▶ 0:56:35Magaziner said, we've not gotten to yes on everything, but I think you'll find when we go through the ans that we've come to agreement on a lot of issues, and we've also had tremendous support from stakeholders who have given us feedback, uh, across the full spectrum. As I mentioned, this is a bipartisan bill. Uh, when we started in september, we had five co-sponsors.
▶ 0:57:03Uh, now we have seven republicans and seven democrat co-sponsors. It also has the enthusiastic endorsement of over 325 organizations, as I said, from every state in the union, someone has endorsed this bill from farmers and ranchers to state, local and tribal governments, a wide swath of the full spectrum of the energy sector, technology innovators who understand the need for more energy and to build that energy quickly, uh, to people
▶ 0:57:36In construction and really many, many areas of our economy. The broad support shows that nepa, nepa presents a major challenge to nearly all sectors of our economy, hindering the priorities of republicans and democrats alike. I think we can say it hinders the priorities of americans. As I've said many times, the nepa process, while born of good intentions, has grown into a convoluted mess.
▶ 0:58:02It's modern, modern characteristic results are not substantially improved environmental outcomes, but rather bureaucratic delays, excessive cost and regulatory uncertainty. The fiscal responsibility act began mending nepa laws and instituting timelines and page limits for environmental documents. Although the administration has successfully implemented those changes, further reforms are necessary to rein in the scope of environmental reviews and prevent endless litigation cycles.
▶ 0:58:29With such action, our nation's ability to build and maintain its critical infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. The speed act, which I introduced alongside congressman golden, addresses these issues in a targeted manner to benefit projects across the board.
▶ 0:58:46First, the bill clarifies that agencies may consider only those environmental effects proximately caused by major federal actions, not those that are speculative or separate in time or place from the projects in question. This language codifies key holdings from the supreme court's unanimous seven county decision, returning the scope of nepa reviews to the statute's original intent.
▶ 0:59:09These reforms will shorten document lengths and project timelines and reduce frivolous, um, litigation. Additionally, the legislation clarifies the definition of a major federal action by establishing once and for all that agencies cannot determine that an action is subject to nepa solely because of federal funding. This will reduce the burdens on both private developers and agencies, allowing federal dollars to be spent more efficiently.
▶ 0:59:37The speed act also helps ensure that the nepa process is carried out fairly, regardless of the type of project seeking approval. Specifically, the bill prevents an agency from withdrawing an environmental document absent of a court order, h.r. 4776 will limit frivolous litigation under nepa.
▶ 0:59:57The litigation legislation tailors judicial remedies to reflect that nepa is a purely procedural statute, a point repeatedly emphasized by the supreme court. Under the speed act, courts can no longer block projects solely because of alleged procedural mistakes. The bill also requires nepa claims to be filed within 150 days of the final action, and that claimant has meaningfully participated in the public comment process.
▶ 1:00:22Claimants also must prove that the challenged action will directly cause them harm. These reforms will prevent litigants from slowing projects with unfounded claims years after a permit has been issued. America is at a crucial point in history. We can either continue to lead the world in technology and infrastructure and in economic prosperity, or we can get overtaken by our adversaries. Our economy is suffocating beneath the mountains of red tape. Nepa has helped or heaped upon the nation over the decades.
▶ 1:00:52We must thoughtfully clear the way for america to unleash its vast natural resources and begin building again with its bipartisan support and project agnostic approach, the speed act will create the stability and clarity needed to spur investments across the country. Again, I want to thank representative golden for his crucial work on the legislation, as well as all my other colleagues who have stepped across the aisle to shape this urgently needed reform.
▶ 1:01:19I urge my colleagues to support the speed act and I yield back. Is there further discussion? Mr. kennedy? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair, for your leadership in pioneering nepa reform through your speed act. I've been in contact with our counties, local industries and infrastructure coalitions throughout utah and received staunch support for the changes proposed by the speed act.
▶ 1:01:42Utah feels the weight of extended wait times, accumulated costs, and the frustrations that come from lack of progress with federal agencies. We've been one of the fastest growing states in the union, and we need to be able to keep up with this growth with an equal level of production. The speed act would bring about the changes needed to streamline nepa, emphasizing common sense solutions. This is not a question of party, but of meeting the needs of our ever expanding, ever growing nation.
▶ 1:02:09I urge my colleagues to to vote in support of this bipartisan bill and yield back the rest of my time. Thank you, Mr. chair. >> gentleman yields back. Miss ansari, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I rise today in strong opposition to the speed act. Let's just be honest about what this bill is. Pro polluter and anti-community and completely disconnected from what americans actually need right now.
▶ 1:02:32It guts environmental protections, cuts communities out of the process, and does not make life meaningfully better for american families. Nepa exists because communities demanded accountability. After decades of environmental disasters. We have to be smarter about how we modernize. But this is just reckless. Democrats are not opposed to permitting reform.
▶ 1:02:57We've been asking for real, meaningful reform that reduces duplication, improves coordination, is more responsive to communities, and gets clean energy. Solar wind transmission built faster so that families can finally see relief in their energy bills. But that's not what this bill does. Not even close.
▶ 1:03:16This bill shrinks the definition of a major federal action so drastically that entire categories of high impact projects would escape meaningful review. It ties agency's hands by restricting what science they're even allowed to consider, and it guts judicial review, leaving communities especially low income, rural and tribal communities, with almost no recourse when the government gets it wrong.
▶ 1:03:44That's not streamlining. It's silencing. On top of all of that, not one provision will meaningfully address transmission bottlenecks or the backlog of affordable wind and solar projects waiting to come online that are being unfairly targeted by the administration. Just because the president holds a grudge, instead of focusing on real solutions, republicans are pushing a bill that fast tracks polluters and leaves families paying the price.
▶ 1:04:14With a worsening climate crisis, polluted air and poisoned drinking water, the american people are already struggling with high costs. They don't need political theater. They need policies that actually lower their energy bills and strengthen our grid. When republicans waste time on proposals that don't move the ball forward on clean energy, working families are the ones who suffer.
▶ 1:04:39They pay more at the pump, more for electricity, more for heating and cooling. We should be laser focused on getting affordable, resilient, clean energy deployed now, not distracted by partizan bills that make things worse. If we are serious about lowering costs, serious about the climate, and serious about strengthening american energy independence, then we need permitting reform that actually works.
▶ 1:05:06Reform that respects communities, uses science, speeds clean energy, and keeps polluters accountable. The speed act fails all of those tests. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and get back to work on reforms that actually deliver for the american people. I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back.
▶ 1:05:26I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record support letters for the speed act from the following groups american clean power, the american council on renewable energy, the business council for sustainable energy, c3 solutions, citizens for responsible energy solutions, the clean energy buyers association, clearpath action, geothermal rising, and the zero emissions transportation association.
▶ 1:05:53The common theme between these organizations is that they all will benefit from this legislation. Due to its unbiased nature and all the above approach to permitting reform. Without objection, so ordered. Is there further discussion? Miss leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Uh, from oil in the permian basin to the wind blowing on our eastern plains, new mexico is an energy dominant state.
▶ 1:06:19I probably have one of the top, if not the top energy producing districts on this committee. So new mexicans in my district know how critical it is for our economy to have the federal government process permits efficiently and fairly, so we can get these projects built. And our permitting process is by no means perfect, and I want to make it faster and better.
▶ 1:06:50But we also need to make sure we get you renewable projects built faster because they save money for american families. And what we are seeing across this country is people cannot afford their utility bills.
▶ 1:07:04We need to make sure we address these rising costs, and in doing so, we need to acknowledge that wind and solar are providers of affordable energy. They help bring the costs down. But under president trump, our permitting process is complete chaos for renewables. And it's not because of nepa.
▶ 1:07:33It's because apparently president trump didn't like seeing windmills from his golf course. And so now he is attacking wind farms everywhere in my district. And representative magaziner's district. We are seeing renewable energy projects stopped.
▶ 1:08:02They can't get faa approval. They can't get all kinds of approval. They are contracts are canceled. So because he didn't like seeing a windmill from his golf course, he is going to make working families pay higher electric prices. We need to start standing up for working families. We need to start standing up for bringing down the cost of electricity.
▶ 1:08:27And so when we do these permitting reforms, we need to make sure we establish strong permitting guardrails and protections. So an administration like trump can't arbitrarily punish an entire industry, which is what we are seeing.
▶ 1:08:48And the bill before us today could have been an opportunity to buy, to pass those kind of bipartisan protections for renewables. But it falls short of that goal. And we need to also make sure that we do not take the public out of consideration of the public good.
▶ 1:09:09And so, while I am in favor of increasing the speed of our permitting process and the efficiency of our permitting process, I want to make sure it is also fair and always puts the public first. And with that, Mr. chair, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back for further discussion. Mr. hernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:09:36As I've said before, one of my top priorities is reconstructing puerto rico's energy grid. And having that as a priority allows me to tolerate measures that I would not otherwise tolerate with regards to environmental protection.
▶ 1:09:51However, after consulting with our stakeholders related to the possible impact of this bill, uh, they've let us know that it would not have much of an impact in accelerating the island's energy grid reconstruction, so I would prefer a more bipartisan bill that reflects a broader spectrum of bipartisan views. Uh, but I generally agree with the purpose that we need to accelerate the deployment of energy in this country while balancing the interests of environmental protection.
▶ 1:10:16And with that, I would like to yield the remainder of my time to ranking member hoffman. >> I thank the gentleman from puerto rico. Uh, as several of my colleagues have pointed out that there's two major flaws in this legislation before us. The first is that it does nothing to end the war on clean energy, nothing at all to undo these arbitrary and reckless revocations of previously approved projects.
▶ 1:10:42All the different ways in which president trump has arbitrarily and recklessly shut down clean energy projects that could bring huge amounts of energy onto the grid. Affordable, clean, reliable energy. Until the bill fixes that problem, um, it's going to be hard to get very many democrats at all to support it.
▶ 1:11:04The second problem is the way the bill goes way too far in constraining environmental reviews, in eliminating, in some cases, transparency and public input. And we don't have to wonder what it looks like when you take away transparency, when you take away public input, when you make it impossible to stop a wrongheaded project that the federal government just decides to do, even if it's illegal, even if it's a crazy idea, when you make it
▶ 1:11:35Impossible to scrutinize or stop that. We have a perfect example, and it is the east wing of the white house right here. This is what happens when there's no transparency, when there's no scrutiny, when there's no input, when there's no way to stop a dumb idea from moving forward because you've done something like this to the nepa process. And so, folks, as we go forward, we're going to offer amendments from democrats that will fix both of these glaring deficiencies in the bill.
▶ 1:12:04We will give you an opportunity to push back on president trump's war on clean energy, and we'll give you an opportunity to put some meaningful guardrails on this bill when it comes to transparency, when it comes to public input, when it comes to remedies to stop a really bad or illegal project from moving forward, we will help you fix this bill if you'll work with us and consider our amendments.
▶ 1:12:30But if you won't do that, if you've just got the partizan blinders on, if you fear that call from the white house, if you work with democrats to make this bill better, then folks, you need to think about this east wing reality. Coming to a project near you, coming to the next refinery, or the next major freeway project, or the next, uh, lng facility or petrochemical project in a place like cancer alley.
▶ 1:12:56This is the kind of transparency and the kind of input and the kind of accountability that you're going to see if this bill is not fixed by approving some of the amendments that we will offer, uh, in the in the time to come, I yield back. >> Mr. chairman, Mr. mcclintock. >> you're recognized. >> thank you. Um, I wish some of my democratic colleagues would would visit the victims of these endless nepa delays.
▶ 1:13:25I'd like to invite them to the town of grizzly flats, california. Unfortunately, it no longer exists. For more than a decade, we tried to get a simple forest thinning project completed. Uh, it was called the trestle project. Everyone knew that this tract, which was adjacent to the town, was morbidly overgrown. It posed a mortal danger to the town for more than a decade.
▶ 1:13:47Pointless nepa studies and endless environmental litigation that spawned them had had had prevented any progress on this vital public safety project. So predictably, and as we had warned in 2021, the caldor fire hit that tract. It exploded out of control. It utterly destroyed the town. A few days later, I stood at the center of that town and had no idea where I was, because there was no point of reference left.
▶ 1:14:15Every structure had literally been reduced to ash. Be interesting, Mr. chairman, to get a study on how much damage nepa has done to the lives and livelihoods of the american people, I suspect that it vastly, vastly exceeds any good that is done. I'd also like to take exception to the claim that wind and solar brings the cost of electricity down.
▶ 1:14:37As gavin newsom has often boasted, california leads the nation in wind and solar, and the result is that californians now bear the highest electricity prices in the continental united states. The left obsesses over a one degree increase in global temperatures over the next century, but they couldn't care less that they're making it impossible for people to heat their homes in in winter and cool them in the summer.
▶ 1:15:02Um, so at some point, I think we need to restore the human aspect of this to the debate. And with that, I'll yield the balance of my time to the chairman. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. And again, I want to stress this is bipartisan legislation. Um, from some of the comments made, you might not think it's bipartisan legislation. And there's a tremendous support to, uh, proactive permitting reform all across the country.
▶ 1:15:28And as we did during the hearing in september, we listened closely and we actually reached out to people on both sides of the dais who said they wanted to work on making this legislation better. And we had good discussions, a lot of dialog back and forth. And I've also listened very closely in the hearing today, and I've heard a lot of accusations made about, uh, bad things that have happened.
▶ 1:15:54But one thing I've observed is everything that was mentioned has happened under the current permitting reform. I think it even highlights why we need agnostic, project neutral, uh, non-biased permitting reform. And that's exactly what we're working on today. So appreciate the gentleman from yielding. I look forward to discussion on the amendments and I yield back. Is there further discussion?
▶ 1:16:21If there's no further discussion is now, in order to consider amendments to h.r. 4776, I recognize myself for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute designated westerman 42 ans. Without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point.
▶ 1:16:42I'm pleased to offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute, which reflects the balanced input of bipartisan colleagues, the technical assistance of federal agencies, and the perceptive feedback of hundreds of diverse stakeholders. Foremost among the ans new additions is language bolstering tribal sovereignty.
▶ 1:17:00For example, borrowing a concept from representative randall's terror act, the ans applies a presumption of negative impacts whenever an agency proposes no action alternative for an action initiated by federally recognized tribe. Responding to feedback from tribal stakeholders, the nrs limits nepa claims for final agency actions involving resources held in trust by the us.
▶ 1:17:23For tribes, it clarifies when challenges can be made and by whom, including tribes, neighboring landowners and other directly affected parties. Reducing litigation. Delays on tribal lands. Other provisions of ans are the direct result of conversations we've had with members across the aisle to ensure that federal and nonfederal agencies, including counties and other local government entities, are pulled into the environmental review process early on.
▶ 1:17:49To that end, the ans requires federal and nonfederal agencies to meet right away to develop deadlines for nepa review and all other necessary authorizations. But those are not the only streamlining features to expedite projects involving multiple cooperating agencies. For instance, the ans requires agencies to conduct concurrent reviews of all authorizations, thereby avoiding unnecessary delays.
▶ 1:18:13Additional bipartisan language in the ans requires firm deadlines for agencies to respond to project applicants. Agencies are required, for example, to certify application completeness within 60 days and to ensure that the nepa process begins promptly thereafter. Such changes address bipartisan concerns about nepa, permitting delays that have been repeatedly raised in this committee. Similarly, the ans requires final agency actions to be executed soon after the requisite environmental documents are completed.
▶ 1:18:43The ans also codifies the practice of allowing agencies to utilize and tear off of previously completed environmental documents. This approach has been employed by both republican and democrat administrations over the years. To simplify the permitting process. Additionally, the ans includes improvements to the bill's judicial review section that incorporate feedback from both stakeholders and members across the aisle.
▶ 1:19:06Since our legislative hearing on this bill back in september, we have received considerable feedback from members of congress, federal agencies and other stakeholders. Again, want to thank my colleagues on this committee, both republicans and democrats, for their willingness to engage constructively. This ans reflects much of the input we have received, and I hope it will encourage more of my friends on the other side of the aisle to vote with us to fix our broken permitting system.
▶ 1:19:33For those reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support the ans and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion on the amendment is now in order to consider amendments to the ans to h.r. 4776, I recognize the gentleman from colorado, Mr. hurd, for the purposes of offering an amendment designated herd 32. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:20:02I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I am the chair of the indian insular affairs subcommittee here in house natural resources. And this was an issue that was brought to us by a number of our tribal stakeholders. This amendment adds clarifying language to the section of the bill that is titled actions for use of tribal trust resources. This section is an important part of of the speed act streamlining provisions.
▶ 1:20:27It provides relief for tribes while also respecting the unique status of tribal trust lands. The amendment that is in herd 032 makes a small but meaningful clarification. It simply specifies that this provision applies only to lands that are already in trust at the time of the final agency action. This helps the section function as intended, and will help to clarify congressional intent.
▶ 1:20:55It's important to note that this amendment does not change the structure, mechanics or policy direction of this section. It simply ensures that the text is precise and not subject to misinterpretation. By focusing the provision solely on projects that occur on existing trust lands, the amendment maintains the speed act's core objective, which is preventing unnecessary or obstructive nepa litigation, and it provides nepa relief to tribal communities seeking to develop their own resources for
▶ 1:21:26The benefit of their people. Uh, as I mentioned before, tribal stakeholders express the need for this clarification, and this amendment simply reflects that input. This is a narrow and precise adjustment that would honor their feedback. I would respectfully urge adoption of the amendment. And Mr. chairman, before yielding back, I would ask for unanimous consent to submit for the record three additional letters of support for the speed act.
▶ 1:21:53Uh, from some of our tribal nations, in particular the jicarilla apache nation from new mexico, the ute indian tribe from the state of utah, and the crow tribe from the state of montana. >> without objection. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:22:17Um, I do oppose this amendment, but I want to commit to working with the gentleman from colorado and with you, Mr. chairman, um, to make sure that we get this right going forward. We do need clarity on how trust assets and tribal trust lands relate to the judicial review process. This needs to be a serious conversation, and it needs to include all tribal voices.
▶ 1:22:39We've got to be careful here, uh, to get this right, because in the short time since this amendment was offered and it's a very recent addition, we've heard from a range of folks with different concerns, uh, even within indian country. And, uh, you know, what we don't want to do is, uh, pick winners and losers between tribes. We want to include all tribal voices.
▶ 1:23:04Uh, and I think there is more work to do on this amendment and other parts of the bill to make sure that that's not perhaps the unintended consequences. So I want to make sure we consult tribes and fully understand the consequences and the unintended consequences of this provision on tribes, um, and future tribal projects. And, uh, so with that, Mr. chairman, I'll be opposing, but, uh, eager to work with the gentleman. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 1:23:33I recognize myself in support of the amendment. I do support the amendment because this amendment adds language to the bill. Section entitled actions for use of tribal trust resources, and the language clarifies the provisions original intent. Specifically, it clarifies that only resources held in trust qualify under this section. This amendment reflects good faith engagement with our tribal partners.
▶ 1:23:59Throughout the process, we've received constructive feedback from tribal partners who want these permitting reforms to enhance tribal sovereignty, which I know has been a big issue that we've worked on in this committee.
▶ 1:24:13This amendment incorporates that feedback in a precise and responsible way, and the change helps prevent the unintended application of the provision and keeps the focus clearly on what the section was meant to do, and that is streamline projects on existing trust lands and stop outside groups from using nepa to hinder tribal development of tribal resources that tribes support. And I support the amendment and thank Mr. hurd for bringing it forward. With that, I yield back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 1:24:43If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. hurd designated herd 32. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. I recognize the gentleman from maine, Mr. golden, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated golden two. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Uh, sorry.
▶ 1:25:12Do I. >> now have to do the procedural? I have an amendment at the desk. All set. Ready to go. >> we're good. You're recognized. I can. >> speak on it. Thank you. Um, well, first, Mr. chair, I want to thank you for, uh, and your staff for for working with myself and my, uh, my staff in a collaborative way on this legislation.
▶ 1:25:39Uh, this is something that many of us here, uh, in the committee or in the congress have talked about permitting reform, talked about as essential to ensuring that we can build things at the pace that we need them. Uh, most importantly for me is that this bill treats all projects equally, whether it be a solar farm or an lng pipeline. However, in our conversations with stakeholders and other members on this panel, an additional need became clear.
▶ 1:26:07That is, that we should do more to ensure that once a project is approved, it cannot later be revoked due to political disagreements, uh uh, or considerations, or for reasons that are unrelated to the merits. Uh, we've seen this problem over several administrations and projects that have previously won approval have at times later been rescinded or revoked by a subsequent administration without clear, convincing or objective reasons for doing so.
▶ 1:26:37Uh, this amendment will address that problem by preventing agencies from rescinding, withdrawing, or terminating authorizations without specific criteria that would justify such an action. So, um, if the criteria are met and the agency takes such an action, the agency needs to be providing a clear and convincing rationale, uh, you know, or good evidence for the action. And, uh, there also needs to be prior notice to the project proponent.
▶ 1:27:05So any agency cancellation, uh, would also be subject to judicial review. Um, the amendment um, here will continue to ensure that all projects are treated fairly and equally. And, um, with that, uh, I would yield back my time. Anyone that wants it can have it. Thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion, Mr. stauber? You're recognized. >> Mr. chair. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:27:31I rise in strong support of this amendment, which I am proud to offer with my good friend and colleague, representative golden, for well over a year now, republicans on the natural resources committee have sought to work with everyone to gather ideas and feedback on this permitting package, ranging from members on both sides of the aisle to project sponsors who are trying to build here in the united states and the communities where the projects are located. And that just doesn't include so-called republican projects or so-called democrat projects. It includes all types of projects.
▶ 1:28:01This bill is meant to be project neutral, not favoring one or the other, especially since this bill was introduced earlier this summer. We have sought to work with democrats to make this a truly bipartisan package that does not favor one party's priorities over the others. We've had good conversations, constructive conversations with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And I genuinely, genuinely want to thank those who were willing to sit down with us and engage in these conversations.
▶ 1:28:29One of the biggest points we have been able to agree on is the need to provide certainty to project sponsors who are trying to build here in the united states of america and protect against political swings when control of government changes from one party to the other. The amendment before us today reflects those conversations this amendment seeks to build upon and protect certainty by preventing politics from getting in the way of good projects.
▶ 1:28:56It provides safeguards that it provides, safeguards that projects approval, once granted, will not be pulled back for arbitrary reasons. It helps take politics out of the permitting system. This is something both republicans and democrats alike can agree on. Once a project is approved on its merits, it should be able to move forward. Plain and simple.
▶ 1:29:19If we don't have this certainty, how are we to expect that project sponsors will want to spend millions, or sometimes even billions of dollars to build here in the united states? I believe this amendment reflects a good faith effort by the majority to work with colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I truly want to thank not only representative golden, but all of my democrat colleagues who were willing to engage in this discussion. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:29:49Is there further discussion, miss ellsworth? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I want to thank the makers of the amendment as well. Um, there are two things, I think, that are clear from the opening remarks and everybody's contributions today. Nepa is the bedrock law for environmental protections and government transparency. But there are also severe inefficiencies in the current process and efficiencies that have led to unacceptable delays in critical projects.
▶ 1:30:13And every one of our communities that simply must be addressed, and we should not any of us, settle for a permitting process that drags on for years or decades. We should not accept federal permitting done entirely on paper in the year 2025, we can and must reform the permitting process to both meet environmental standards and get big projects done faster. And I agree with what's been said on both sides of the aisle today. We have to be a nation that can do big things again.
▶ 1:30:39That's why myself and several of the democratic colleagues on the dais today have been earnestly negotiating with the chair ahead of this markup. Our offices worked in good faith drafting language to address quite a few concerns. We had a long list. And Mr. chair, I want to thank you sincerely and your staff for working diligently to try to address those concerns. This manager's amendment does get to the heart of one piece of that which is certainty. And as Mr.
▶ 1:31:03Stauber said, that's a critically important piece of this reform package, certainty for our communities and certainty for the industries that it impacts. Our goal is to shape language to ensure all projects, regardless of industry, have a fair shot at being considered for federal permits. The language of the manager's amendment is reflective of those weeks of negotiation, but I want to make clear that there are still some outstanding pieces that have yet to be resolved.
▶ 1:31:31The language in the manager's amendment on permit certainty makes clear that agencies are not allowed to unilaterally and retroactively cancel permit authorizations without judicial recourse. And that's that's important. And I want to thank the makers of the amendment. But there are still questions surrounding the beginning of the permitting process. Who decides what permits actually get reviewed, and what powers do agencies or presidents have to unilaterally ban consideration of permits from certain industries?
▶ 1:31:58For instance, a new policy set by the department of interior this summer effectively stops renewable energy applications from even being considered. A july 15th memo from interior directs permitting offices to change their application review processes for only renewable energy projects. The memo requires an additional three levels of review, including from the secretary of interior himself, for every step of the permitting process.
▶ 1:32:23Permitting staff can't even post a notice on the federal register without the secretary's permission. Under this new guidance, experts have confirmed that these requirements would ostensibly halt all consideration of renewable energy permits. These reckless decisions by the trump administration have resulted in the cancellation of critical renewable energy projects across the nation, including projects that are 80% complete, like in Mr. magaziner's district.
▶ 1:32:48But it's important to note that not just clean energy, the clean energy industry is concerned about this issue of parity. Both the oil industry and gas industry and the clean energy industry are asking for language and speed to ensure tech neutrality. And I want to make clear that the chairman has written a bill that is technology neutral.
▶ 1:33:08But in light of this administration's attack on clean energy, that's simply not enough for this moment, because these industries see this administration targeting the renewable sector and fear of future administration could turn around and use that same hammer against them. That's why the language to address parity across industry is so critical. And while we have not yet landed on final language, we continue to make progress.
▶ 1:33:31I look forward to continue to work with the chair and his staff, our staff as well, to make sure that we get not just the certainty that's addressed in this manager's amendment, but also parity across industries into the final product of the bill. And this collaboration is an opportunity for real progress on an issue that's plagued many of us in gridlock congress for too long. And I support the amendment. With that, I yield back. >> the lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment. >> Mr. chair?
▶ 1:34:01>> Mr. fernandez. >> Mr. chair, we're all quickly reading the amendment now, and I think we're all realizing that it is right in it is moving in the right direction, because that's what we need is we need certainty. And especially in a place, as I described earlier, like my district, where I have all forms of energy production and all forms of energy production are important to our state and to our consumers.
▶ 1:34:28But we also need to recognize that when we interfere with renewable energy projects in a manner that is apparently vengeful, or we don't really understand why. Right. And, and, uh, my colleague has set out, uh, the record of where they were actually targeting these.
▶ 1:34:51And for those of us who are doing everything we can to lower the cost to consumers, we need to make sure we continue to move these renewable energy projects forward. And rather than relying on anecdote of what somebody pays or not pays in california, and the reasons for that, I would seek unanimous consent to enter into the record.
▶ 1:35:19A june 17th, 2025 article with the title wind and solar energy are cheaper than electricity from fossil fuel plants. That is in the, um, scientific american, which is based on data. >> that objection so ordered.
▶ 1:35:40>> and I think a key statement in here is that, you know, it talks about the need for most competitive form of generation and that renewable energy, open quote, will continue to play a key role in the build out of new power generation, the us.
▶ 1:35:59This is particularly true in the current high power demand environment, where renewables stand out as both the lowest cost and quickest to deploy generation resource. Close quote. But if we interfere with that quickest to deploy, then they do no longer provide the lowest cost energy because you are preventing them from reaching the grid.
▶ 1:36:27And like we can't understand why you would want to punish american consumers in this way. And so while I appreciate and support the amendment of what do you do after the fact, I agree with my colleague statement of we need to make sure that those projects that are currently underway and being built out
▶ 1:36:59And are looking for the permitting, including in my district, where we might we could have one of the largest solar projects that brings we revenues not just to the stakeholders in the business companies, but some of my counties are seeing the largest increase in tax revenue they have ever had.
▶ 1:37:20The ranchers are seeing increased in revenue because they can both graze their cattle and receive revenue from that tower. And so when you interfere with, especially wind power, you are interfering with the rural economy. And so I just wanted to raise that point and put in actually, um, issues with regard to data on, uh, electricity demand. And with that I yield back.
▶ 1:37:49And thank you. Thank you very much. Both Mr. stauber and Mr. golden for that amendment. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment, Mr. mclintock, you recognized. >> just to take a moment to wonder aloud, if wind and solar are so cheap, why do we need to keep heavily subsidizing them and mandating them on consumers? The fact is, the subsidies don't make wind and solar cheaper. They simply hide the enormous cost of these systems from consumers. I yield back.
▶ 1:38:20>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Mr. magaziner, you're recognized. >> I yield to miss leger fernandez. >> uh, so what's really interesting is that in this article, and I'll make a copy and send it over to you, representative mcclintock, is that this points out that even without subsidies, renewable energy is still cheaper. So, you know, we have a lot of subsidies that we that we provide for oil and gas.
▶ 1:38:46Uh, and uh, those are continuing to flow, but they have cut the subsidies for renewable energy. And the analysis here actually takes into account that they have cut the subsidies. So even without subsidies, renewable energy is still cheaper. And with that, I thank you very much, Mr. magaziner, for the time. And I yield back. >> I'll second your your statement. I mean, clearly a lot depends on the type of energy, the location.
▶ 1:39:13It's windier in some places than it is in others. It's sunnier in some places than it is in others. But to simply suggest across the board that all forms of clean energy are always more expensive in all places, at all times is clearly not true. And in fact, as technology improved and production lines are built out, uh, increasingly solar and wind are becoming cost competitive, even cheaper than many forms of conventional energy in many parts of the country.
▶ 1:39:40And that's a good thing, because it means that we will have more clean, affordable energy that is american made getting onto the grid and I will yield back. >> gentleman yields back there. Further discussion on the amendment. Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:39:54It is always a little bit rich to hear, you know, the selective concern about subsidies from folks who just voted to massively discount the royalties, the already low royalties on coal, uh, and voted to give away millions of acres of land, uh, to the dying coal industry that can't even compete economically on its own. So, um, let's take that at face value. But, um, Mr. chairman, I do want to, uh, thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.
▶ 1:40:24What I appreciated about it is it at least acknowledges that this crazy war on clean energy is happening, that it is a thing. Um, now I have questions and concerns about this amendment. Um, and I feel like it's in no way adequate to address the crazy war on clean energy.
▶ 1:40:42But it does acknowledge that revocation of already awarded permits has been one of many ways in which the trump administration is trying to kill off clean energy, and that's hurting consumers. In places like new england, it is costing thousands and thousands of jobs. It is trying to kill off an entire sector, uh, that will make us more competitive globally. It just makes no sense.
▶ 1:41:08And so, uh, it is a good thing, I suppose, to say that you should not do this anymore going forward, but it doesn't do anything to undo, uh, retroactively, all the damage that's been done from these revocations to projects all over the country. Thankfully, the one in Mr. magaziner's district, uh, has had the resources and the wherewithal to go to court. Uh, and it doesn't need this bill or this amendment, uh, to defend its rights.
▶ 1:41:36We're going to we're going to get that clean energy in new england. It's just going to be a little bit more expensive because donald trump made that project proponent go to court, uh, in order to have the permit that it was already awarded. Um, but the problem is not stopping, uh, future retroactive revocations. The problem is ever getting clean energy projects to the permitting process under this administration.
▶ 1:42:03They're just categorically, as miss elfreth said, saying, no, we won't even consider you. That's the problem. And that continues to be the glaring deficiency in this bill. It does nothing to stop the myriad ways in which the trump administration is not even allowing clean energy process projects to get into the queue and to move forward and have a fair chance at getting that permit.
▶ 1:42:28So, um, you know, retroactive revocation is just one small part of the problem. Um, we will never get permits to be revoked unless we confront the bigger problem of the trump administration's crazy war on clean energy. With that, I yield. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself and I support this amendment.
▶ 1:42:53And again, want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing it to us and working with us to craft it into a workable provision. Mr. goldman, thank you so much for your efforts on this. But it wasn't just Mr. goldman by himself. This came out as a major issue. Uh, and I was told it was the issue. If we could get certainty in the bill, then, um, people would be much more comfortable with the bill.
▶ 1:43:18And, uh, if at one point I assumed that if we got this certainty provision in the bill, it would bring on a lot more support for the bill. And I think it will not only, uh, in this committee, but in our conference or in the house as a whole and across the country. And there's a couple of things being debated here. The idea of certainty and the idea of parity. This amendment is about certainty.
▶ 1:43:45Now, I'll contend that the bill is all about parity. And there's a lot of talk about different forms of energy, mainly wind and solar, saying this bill doesn't have parity for wind and solar. This bill is tech neutral. It's project agnostic, and I contend it is the most fair bill and language with parity that, uh, that we've had in this committee.
▶ 1:44:13When we talk about certainty, this is something I think everybody should agree on. The opposite of certainty is obviously uncertainty. And that's the world we live in right now, the world of uncertainty. If I have a good idea and want to build something in this country, will I be able to build it?
▶ 1:44:30Not only will I be able to build it, will I be able to build it on a timeline where it actually has a financial return to it, and there's so much uncertainty in that area that it's not only hurting, uh, efforts where people step out on a limb to do something big. It's keeping people from not even taking that first step, because the process is so burdensome right now, and it takes so much time when we're talking about an average of 4 to 5 years.
▶ 1:44:59And then on a lot of big projects, we're talking about decades to just to get the permit. This, uh, far surpasses the length of, uh, any one presidential administration. This is congress's duty to put laws in place that give investors, that give innovators the certainty to build again in america.
▶ 1:45:23Uh, there was a tremendous amount of work that went in to this amendment and, uh, on both sides of the aisle. Um, Mr. stauber, Mr. golden, are the ones that are leading this. But I can tell you there was a tremendous amount of effort in the staff. Uh, I'm not even sure if they slept this week, but they've done a tremendous job of getting this certainty provision here so that we can amend it into the bill today.
▶ 1:45:52Uh, hopefully after we pass this bill out of committee and people realize how strong the bill is, how it does provide parity, and it's going to provide certainty that we can get many more people on board to support it and even maybe get the senate to sit up and take notice that we need to do permitting reform, and we need to do it quickly because the stakes are high and we need to have certainty as we move forward in the process. Um, again, I support this amendment.
▶ 1:46:24I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. magaziner, you're recognized. >> just briefly, thank you to the chairman and to the sponsors. Um, I'm very glad that this language is going to be in the bill. It's, um, something that we've discussed quite a bit. And you're absolutely right. Uh, having that certainty is essential for sending a message to developers, to investors, uh, that they can build in america again.
▶ 1:46:49Um, my concern is that, uh, it's only prospective. And so it does not do anything to address the projects that have been blocked by the trump administration so far this year, or projects that it will block between now and final passage. Whenever that occurs. I'm going to vote for the amendment. I support the amendment. I'm glad that it's in here. I think it's a positive step forward.
▶ 1:47:17But later today, I'll be introducing an additional amendment to make the provisions of this one retroactive to the beginning of this year, to capture those projects that have already been unfairly and unjustly blocked. But a big thank you to you, to the staffs and to the sponsors for, uh, for moving this piece of it forward, I thank you. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes.
▶ 1:47:39>> so when we talk about retroactive, how retroactive do we want to be, how far back in history do we want to go and resurrect projects that have been, uh, stopped or canceled by administrations on both sides of the aisle? I think that's the problem. When we talk about, uh, writing retroactive legislation, because a lot of these projects were were killed and buried many years ago. And, uh, that's why we need to focus forward.
▶ 1:48:09We need to look at what's best for the country and how do we make it better going forward, I yield back. >> yeah. I just suggest to the chairman, I mean, if if there was a willingness to have that conversation, I'm happy to have it. I just make two points. The first is if your concern is projects that may have been blocked, for example, during the biden administration, uh, I am sure that the trump administration is moving quickly to reverse those decisions. And so I would suggest it's likely a non-issue.
▶ 1:48:33But, uh, you know, if there's a conversation to be had about going back further than january of this year, I think that's a conversation that's worth having with the understanding that the further back you go, uh, you know, uh, things change, right? Uh, you know, population patterns change. You know, if you go back ten years, 15 years, 20 years, you obviously run into some issues. But, um, I don't I don't disagree with your premise.
▶ 1:48:56I would just say that, uh, I would I would imagine that projects that were blocked under democratic administrations are getting a second look under the trump administration now, so we can discuss it further when my amendment comes up. In the meantime, I, uh, I thank you for moving this piece of it forward, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. golden designated golden oh two. All those in favor signify by saying I those opposed. No.
▶ 1:49:25In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. I recognize ranking member hoffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated hoffman number one. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:49:43So, you know, we've heard several times already in this conversation that, um, you know, we're just restoring congress's original intent or we're just, uh, clarifying what what perhaps some congress meant all along when it came to nepa. Uh, let me be real clear. That's not what's going on here. Uh, we're not clarifying, uh, congressional intent. We're substituting a new congressional intent.
▶ 1:50:11It's very clear from the language of this bill. And this is a substituted new congressional intent from one of the most extreme and dysfunctional congresses in american history. So back when there was a, uh, productive and deeply bipartisan congress in 1969 that passed nepa, uh, and put it on a republican president's desk to be signed, um, it made clear that the federal government must use all
▶ 1:50:43Practical means to protect and restore the environment, to safeguard public health, and to consider long term consequences of federal actions. That was the intent. Okay, let's not distort that. Nepa was meant to prevent avoidable mistakes, not to reduce environmental protection, and to to reduce the whole thing to a paperwork exercise, which is the new congressional intent that's being imputed.
▶ 1:51:06This bill tries to do that by inserting new purpose language that rewrites nepa as a purely procedural statute, stripping it of any actual accountability or responsibility beyond just disclosing some impacts that happen to get considered. Treating environmental review as a nuisance rather than a safeguard. My amendment strikes that language and restores nepa as true purpose.
▶ 1:51:31It reaffirms that federal agencies must not only consider and disclose environmental effects, but take action to protect the environment. That's what this whole thing was always about meaningfully engaged with the public. Avoid or minimize reasonably foreseeable harm. For years, opponents of nepa have tried to narrow it down to a box checking exercise. That view is now embedded in the speed act, which treats environmental reviews and nuisance.
▶ 1:51:59Again, um, rather than a tool to prevent costly, harmful mistakes, weakening environmental review won't fix permitting challenges. It certainly won't help us build the clean energy future that we need. Gutting nepa only invites more risk, more mistakes, more litigation, more damage to communities that already face too many environmental burdens.
▶ 1:52:22Nepa was created to make sure federal agencies get it right, to make sure that they avoid unintended consequences, uphold a responsibility to the environment. It's about actually striking a balance between the environment, people, and infrastructure, and to say that it is purely procedural ignores the law's history and the true purpose of that bipartisan congress that passed it back in 1969. My republican colleagues are arguing that nepa shouldn't mandate environmental outcomes.
▶ 1:52:51Well, there's a news flash that was that was never the intent. Uh, and it's not what the bill even does. That's a straw man argument. The law was designed to ensure that the federal government have a meaningful process that includes the public, that we prevent and mitigate environmental harm, where we can not shrug it off like this legislation does. Nepa works because it brings agencies into the process early.
▶ 1:53:19It forces them to take a hard look at alternatives, and it carefully weighs long term consequences on the environment. Calling this all purely procedural removes the incentive to make sure those choices are made responsibly. And if we're serious about responsible permitting, reform, and environmental accountability, we should be reinforcing nepa's purpose rather than stripping it away. I urge adoption of this amendment and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 1:53:48I recognize myself, I oppose the amendment. The amendment strikes language in the speed act, clarifying that nepa is a purely procedural statute and inserts text mandating substantive environmental outcomes. This amendment defies the supreme court precedent, including the unanimous seven county decision issued earlier this year.
▶ 1:54:11I believe the amendment could invite even more nepa litigation by adding new and undefined terms to the statute. Also, ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. The supreme court's decision in seven county infrastructure coalition versus eagle county, colorado, in which the court clarifies that nepa is, quote, purely a procedural statute, end quote, without objection, so ordered.
▶ 1:54:39Urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment? The question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair of the nos have it request a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed.
▶ 1:55:06I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number three. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, so we cannot move forward with a serious permitting reform conversation while president trump and congressional republicans are waging an all out war on clean energy.
▶ 1:55:24That is why my amendment would prevent this bill from taking effect until every rescinded clean energy grant and funding award for wind, solar storage and transmission is fully reinstated. It also requires agencies to adopt clear limits on future withdrawals of funding, so that once an agency has allocated or approved funds and notified the recipient, those dollars can't be arbitrarily yanked away.
▶ 1:55:51Over the past few months, the department of energy has terminated $7.6 billion in clean energy awards. Reports show that nearly $23 billion more is on the chopping block right now. Projects that would lower energy costs, strengthen the grid, and provide thousands of jobs. These are straightforward, beneficial investments that serve only to benefit the average american, and there is no rational explanation for targeting them.
▶ 1:56:22The only people benefiting are big oil billionaires. As trump wipes out their competition, it doesn't stop there. The united states has 73gw of planned offshore wind capacity, enough energy to power 30 million homes. But this administration has recklessly stalled, permitting and slashed the bureau of ocean energy management's budget, uh, for anything other than oil and gas.
▶ 1:56:47This has put major projects in limbo, forced developers and workers to pick up the pieces while my republican colleagues just look the other way. These delays and cuts to clean energy are not just counterproductive, they're downright illegal. Congress appropriated these funds, and the administration is rescinding them mid-project from companies working to deliver the cheapest, fastest, and most reliable energy. No business can operate this way.
▶ 1:57:14With this much uncertainty, no serious permitting reform can afford to simply ignore that all of this is happening. We can't stay silent while the administration drags its feet and undercuts clean energy investments. Meanwhile, china is charging full speed ahead, becoming a global leader in renewable energy, dominating critical clean tech, manufacturing and building the infrastructure of the future. The stuff that most of the world wants.
▶ 1:57:39Slashing clean energy funding is all part of this administration's misguided drill baby drill agenda. And it's only taken us backward. The promise of american leadership in the green economy is being squandered. In effect, china, as china dominates the industries and jobs of tomorrow, we're locking ourselves into fossil fuel stalemate when we should be taking advantage of the clean energy revolution.
▶ 1:58:04I will continue to say this we can't have a real conversation about permitting reform until this is these attacks stop. My amendment restores the funding that's been cut. It protects future funding, and it puts us back on solid ground to have an honest, serious permitting conversation, one that supports american communities and positions us to lead the global clean energy economy of the future. This is the responsible place to start. I urge adoption and yield back.
▶ 1:58:35>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I oppose this amendment. The amendment is not specific to nepa, and the speed act does nothing to affect agency grant making or funding levels. The clear goal of this amendment, then, is to hold the underlying bill hostage to achieve funding goals that are more appropriate for debate on the committee on appropriations.
▶ 1:58:59I note that the speed act would actually benefit recipients of grants and other federal funding now and in the future, by streamlining the nepa process and making american tax dollars that are spent to be spent more efficiently. The bill also clarifies what constitutes a major federal action. It specifies that just because an entity receives federal funds, including grants such as funding alone, is insufficient to trigger nepa.
▶ 1:59:25Uh, that was if you're wondering what that's all about, uh, congress passed a bill called the chips act. And all of these chip building facilities that were manufacturing plants built on private land were subject to nepa and being held up, uh, for being built, uh, because of nepa that was solely triggered on a financial nexus.
▶ 1:59:48And all of this is part of the reason why this bill has garnered support from a diverse array of stakeholders. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which does nothing to improve the bill or the nepa process in general, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion on the amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number three. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed?
▶ 2:00:20No. The opinion of the chair of the nos have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number 13. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. This amendment strikes the provision of the bill that dramatically narrows the definition of a major federal action under nepa.
▶ 2:00:44This is another one of these maybe seemingly small wording changes that has a sweeping effect and is a huge environmental rollback. It would allow federal agencies to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars on major infrastructure, energy and environmental projects with no environmental review, no public input, and no accountability, simply because the money flows through a grant or a loan. Transportation funding shows exactly how dangerous this is.
▶ 2:01:13Under current law, the department of transportation awards funding for a highway or transit project, and that funding decision is the federal action that triggers nepa. The dot then uses the nepa review to conduct transportation conformity under the clean air act to evaluate impacts under the national historic preservation act. To coordinate with the fish and wildlife service on esa issues, and to work with communities to analyze alternatives and mitigate harm.
▶ 2:01:41It is a single, integrated, efficient review structure that's been in place for decades, and this bill blows it up by declaring that grants, loans, loan guarantees, cost share awards and almost all forms of federal financial assistance are not major federal actions.
▶ 2:02:01The bill would exempt most federally funded highway and transit projects from nepa altogether, unless a river crossing drags in the army corps of engineers or an endangered species happens to be nearby, everything else becomes a patchwork of fragmented state processes with no federal accountability. This is not streamlining. This is chaos. Mr.
▶ 2:02:24Chairman, I asked earlier, um, if you could tell me how many projects would be removed from federal review if this language becomes law? Uh, and I haven't heard an answer, but it does not stop at transportation. Epa, doe other federal agencies would face the same problem.
▶ 2:02:40Epa uses nepa for major water infrastructure, brownfields redevelopment, air quality projects doe uses nepa to evaluate transmission lines, loan guarantees for energy projects, clean grid modernization, industrial demonstrations, and a lot more.
▶ 2:02:59And if congress tells these agencies that financial assistance is no longer a federal action, they lose the very tool they rely on to identify impacts, to coordinate with other agencies, and to fix problems before they occur. Additionally, current law requires agencies to conduct nepa analysis when they have sufficient control over the environmental effects of an action.
▶ 2:03:23This bill replaces sufficient with complete, which is an impossible standard for agencies to ever meet. Federal agencies share responsibility with states, tribes, and local partners. They almost never have complete control over anything, and that means almost no grants, loans or federally assisted projects would ever trigger nepa. It is effectively a nepa repeal for many infrastructure programs.
▶ 2:03:50This single change guarantees more litigation, more uncertainty, inconsistency and delays this. This provision also allows agencies to skip nepa simply because another agency wants evaluated some part of the project. That is a recipe for outdated analyzes, for rubber stamping and ignoring cumulative or community level impacts.
▶ 2:04:15We know what happens when major federally funded projects move forward without environmental review, because before nepa existed, interstate highways plowed through black neighborhoods. They cut tribal communities off from ancestral lands. They carved deep divides through low income urban corridors. Nepa was created precisely because congress realized the federal government does have responsibility when it funds large scale projects that reshape entire communities and entire regions.
▶ 2:04:44This bill pretends that funding decisions have no environmental consequences, which is simply not true. Money is the action. Federal dollars drive where highways go, which towns get rebuilt or displaced? Which communities bear the brunt of pollution? Pretending otherwise is not reform, it is denial. My amendment offers a clean strike of this entire mess.
▶ 2:05:07It keeps the current definition of major federal action, which was just changed in the 2023 amendments, and it preserves the integrated environmental review system that our infrastructure programs rely on so that we don't have chaos unleashed at dot, epa, doe, and across federal government. I'm open to discussing this further. Maybe we can find an appropriate solution to the motivation behind this change. But as drafted, this is reckless.
▶ 2:05:35It is legally indefensible, and it will hurt communities that congress is supposed to protect. I urge adoption of this amendment and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I oppose the amendment. Again, this amendment would strike the improved definition of major federal action, which clarifies that federal funding and grants don't automatically trigger nepa.
▶ 2:06:03Now, removing the financial nexus isn't going to exempt every project from nepa that has a financial nexus. Um, when you're talking about road projects, you get into all kinds of areas maybe crossing federal land, maybe crossing state lines, maybe crossing an area that has wetlands and you have endangered species to consider all of those. If those things could trigger nepa, but just simply having a financial nexus shouldn't trigger nepa.
▶ 2:06:34Uh, if, as we've seen in past, funding programs like the iija and the chips act, I'll say I voted for neither one of those. But you know what? They passed congress and were signed into law. Uh, the cumbersome nepa reviews are often the main culprit behind grants being held up or not issued at all.
▶ 2:06:54Uh, as I mentioned earlier in the chips act, you had manufacturing companies, microchip companies that wanted to bring that technology back to the us and build it here. They received massive federal grants that what they were building were, uh, buildings on private land, um, that they weren't on federal land. The only thing that triggered nepa was the funding part.
▶ 2:07:21Now they still had to go through permitting processes at the state and local level, but there was no reason to have to do nepa on a manufacturing plant in the middle of texas or georgia, or the many places that these were being built. And the speed act fixes this issue, and it requires agencies to focus nepa reviews on projects with genuine federal connections.
▶ 2:07:46The change in the bill will allow taxpayer dollars to be spent more efficiently and streamline initiatives supported by both republicans and democrats. This amendment is a move in the wrong direction, and if you're wondering about what happened on the chips act, uh, congress ended up having to pass individual bills.
▶ 2:08:04I think with overwhelming bipartisan support to exempt these projects from nepa so they could be built, um, that it shouldn't require congress to go back and pass a law every time somebody trying to build something in this country, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment, Mr. jeff hurd? >> yeah. Mr. chair, thank you very much. Um, I do oppose this amendment, but, Mr.
▶ 2:08:31Chairman, I just came from a small business meeting and, uh, unprovoked, the witness stated that that they support the speed act. It's needed, uh, for development in this country. So I just wanted to share that with you. Then I also wanted to share, uh, wanted to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the center of the american experiment in support of h.r. 4776 and the improvements made in the ans be entered into the record.
▶ 2:09:02>> without objection. >> and one more. Mr. chair, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the laborers international union of north america in support of h.r. 4776, be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and I yield. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman 13. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed. No.
▶ 2:09:30In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman 26. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. This amendment strikes the provision of the bill that would dramatically narrow the scope of what federal agencies may consider in a nepa review, and it would replace those provisions with a clear, workable standard that is grounded in decades of practice.
▶ 2:10:00The language in the underlying bill would sharply limit agencies to only the most immediate and on site effects of a project. It would prohibit them from examining impacts that occur downstream, that occur over time, or in connection with related actions, and of course, no consideration for the climate or for communities dealing with compounding and cumulative pollution.
▶ 2:10:25I would fundamentally this would fundamentally alter how nepa works, how it has worked for more than 50 years. And the majority has suggested that this provision simply codifies the supreme court's seven county decision. But seven county did not require these restrictions. The court affirmed that agencies have broad discretion to determine what impacts are relevant and how far their analysis should go.
▶ 2:10:52The court did not impose new limits on what agencies may consider. In fact, it left broad discretion for agencies to analyze cumulative, downstream or time delayed impacts when they believe those impacts are reasonably foreseeable and this bill goes in the opposite direction. It strips agencies of that discretion. It forbids them from considering entire categories of impacts, even when the science is clear and the consequences are real. That will not clarify nepa.
▶ 2:11:20It will create uncertainty. And this isn't limited to climate. The restriction would prevent agencies from examining harms that communities across the country are living with right now. So consider the poster child here. Louisiana's cancer alley, where predominantly black neighborhoods face some of the highest pollution related cancer risks in the nation.
▶ 2:11:45Those risks result from cumulative emissions from many facilities over decades, impacts that are well documented and directly tied to federal permitting decisions. And under this bill, agencies would be prohibited from considering those cumulative effects because they unfold over time and across multiple sources. That's not streamlining. That's telling federal agencies to look the other way in the face of an obviously foreseeable harm.
▶ 2:12:16Nepa strength has always been its its requirement that agencies take a hard look at the real world consequences of their actions, including impacts that occur beyond the project footprint or that develop over time. This is how agencies avoid unintended harm. It's how the public stays informed. It's how federal decisions remain accountable and transparent. The language in this bill dismantles that approach.
▶ 2:12:41It forces agencies to ignore all of that information, information that they know is relevant, that creates new legal risk for project sponsors and leaves communities in the dark about the actual impacts that everyone can see coming. My amendment would simply strike these provisions and restore a long standing, workable standard that aligns with seven county agencies.
▶ 2:13:04Decide the appropriate scope of review, and they do that based on their expertise, and courts defer to that judgment, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I oppose this amendment. The amendment requires agencies to consider indirect or cumulative effects for proposed actions, and includes new and ambiguous language that result in increased litigation and uncertainty.
▶ 2:13:30This would force agencies to consider limitless effects. This language would take our country in the wrong direction by stifling critical infrastructure projects of all kinds. I oppose the amendment as it directly goes, against provisions of the act that seek to ensure environmental documents are focused and digestible for the general public, I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. randall, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 2:13:56I, um, you know, I've been thinking about balancing the importance of efficiency and speed in permitting with, as you say, ambiguous downstream impacts. And I keep thinking about washington state's long term challenge with fish passage barriers.
▶ 2:14:17It you might remember when you took us to alaska, um, we were, uh, visiting, um, a fuel company, a oil company, and they wanted to take us to, to look at this fish project. And we walked over and there was a culvert. And I thought to myself, oh, this must be, um, a project that they're getting ready to fix to tear out the culvert, to build a bigger, unencumbered, um, fish passage.
▶ 2:14:47But no, the culvert was new. And in washington state, we have been in a multi-year process of tearing out highway culverts because no one had anticipated the negative impact that they would have on fish passage and salmon health in our ecosystem.
▶ 2:15:06And it was only because of expensive, drawn out litigation by tribes in washington that the state was responsible for repairing, um, those culverts and ensuring that fish could move effectively through our streams and watersheds.
▶ 2:15:27Now, I don't know if foresight could have gotten us to this place when we were initially building highways in washington state, but I do believe that is our responsibility to learn from the past and to be thoughtful about upstream and downstream impacts of projects. So, one might say ambiguous.
▶ 2:15:49But another take might be cost saving long term, because if we ten years from now are taken to court over construction, that has incredibly negative, detrimental impacts on our community, then our states, our counties, the federal government is going to be holding the bag for those
▶ 2:16:20Repairs that we will do. So why don't we take the time to have the foresight to explore the possible negative impacts of these projects, instead of rushing ahead without thought to some of them? Thank you, I yield back. >> lady yields back. Mr. craig, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> um. >> efforts to expand the definition of. Reasonably foreseeable rather than. >> tailor it to close causal relationship.
▶ 2:16:50Uh, should be opposed. >> nepa's procedural law meant. >> to guide agency decision. Making on a proposed action. >> and widening. >> the effects. Agencies have to consider, leaves them open to frivolous lawsuits and decision paralysis, and. Leaving that that would leave many of our critical projects. We need to ensure energy reliability, reliability and quality infrastructure in jeopardy. >> if we don't have.
▶ 2:17:16>> a permitting system that can provide certainty to industry, whether it's energy or a manufacturing plant, or even a road or a bridge, and we'll continue to lose to china. In fact, I would say adding cumulative effects means the cumulative effect is that we lose to china. And I would oppose the amendment. >> gentleman yields back. Mr. stauber, you're recognized. >> Mr. chair. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Uh, I do oppose this amendment, but I want to go back.
▶ 2:17:42Uh, miss randall brought up a very, very good point, because she and I went on that bipartisan trip to alaska and the the culvert that she's speaking of. Uh, that culvert was supported by the tribal community, the community itself, alaska fish and wildlife, alaska dnr, uh, the industry. And that that culvert will be continuously monitored, uh, for the trout and species that go through that. And as it sits, Mr.
▶ 2:18:10Uh, mister chair, it's in the oldest. Well, the oldest, well, there next to the oldest. Well, in alaska, in the middle of a designated wilderness. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman 26. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed?
▶ 2:18:41No. The opinion of the chair, the nos have it. A recorded vote has been requested for the proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. I recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number 30. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. So transparency has always been a cornerstone of nepa, but under this administration, of course, nepa has instead become a black box for projects that benefit trump's polluter pals.
▶ 2:19:07That means rushed reviews with no chance for the public to weigh in, or even know what actions and agencies contemplating before project gets an approval, like the 14 day permitting of a uranium mine near the navajo nation, with no draft environmental impact statement and no public comment at all. Uh, but if it's a clean energy project, it goes into the black box and never comes out.
▶ 2:19:32Not a single solar or wind project has received a permit since secretary burgum ordered layers of secretarial review for even the most basic authorizations, like routine site surveys. No one knows what happens to an application after it disappears into the secretary's office. Developers are left wondering if they'll ever get to build.
▶ 2:19:56While families in both red and blue states wait for the good paying jobs and the cheap, abundant energy that they were promised. Today, it's clean energy. But we all know the pendulum swings, setting up a transparent process for the public and for industry is crucial for making sure that all proposed projects are fairly and fully considered.
▶ 2:20:19That's why I'm proposing an amendment to require agencies to publish a draft environmental impact statement, and to hold a standard public comment period before finalizing it, as well as reporting on where projects are in the permitting pipeline. In my meetings with developers, many of them have said that they want to encourage early public engagement instead of this back end process where it always devolves to litigation.
▶ 2:20:47But this administration's made one of the most important venues for public participation, the chance for public to review and respond to a proposed action before a plan is finalized, uh, entirely optional. And that leaves affected communities with no choice but to sue to make sure their voices are heard.
▶ 2:21:04My amendment restores this crucial step, giving everyone a chance to take a hard look at government actions before they're approved and make any needed changes in the project's planning stage, not just in the courtroom, and by adding report requirements, reporting requirements to the permitting deadlines and performance schedules for authorizations, the amendment cracks open the permitting black box to show what kind of projects are getting stuck, where in the process it's happening, and for how long.
▶ 2:21:34This is important data for all kinds of projects, and a needed oversight tool to expose where the process is breaking down or being weaponized. I urge support for this amendment and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment, Mr. stauber, you recognized? >> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, I oppose this amendment.
▶ 2:21:54Um, you know, nepa's original intent was to ensure that environmental impacts are considered not to create endless red tape that delays vital infrastructure and critical energy projects. Additionally, permitting reforms will help all forms of energy.
▶ 2:22:10And I would like to submit, uh, without objection, I would like to submit, uh, for the record, rather a green tape post titled nepa stats that highlights how transmission projects undergoing nepa, ci, 31% litigation rate and a 12% cancellation rate, and solar projects undergoing nepa see a whopping 64% litigation rate and a 32% cancellation rate.
▶ 2:22:40>> without objection. So ordered. >> thank you very much. And lastly, I just want Mr. chair, uh, my comment is, uh, 60, 64% of california's oil and gas comes from foreign sources, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Recognize myself? I oppose the amendment. And, uh, I just want to say I don't oppose the spirit of the amendment, but later in the markup, we've got a uc bill, uh, by Mr. young kim.
▶ 2:23:09Uh, it's his nepa reporting bill. And in that bill, um, we don't require people to or agencies to report. Report? Uh, everything. Uh, as far as, like, all timelines missed in the bill, which would include every time an agency or project proponent misses an application timeline, we've made reasonable adjustments. Adjustments? Uh, we're, uh, they can report statistics without crushing the agencies.
▶ 2:23:41And I look forward to advancing that bill later in the markup through further discussion on the amendment. There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. or by the ranking member. Hoffman designated hoffman number 30. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed no opinion of the chair. The nos have it recorded. Vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed.
▶ 2:24:06Recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss fernandez, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated ledger. Fernandez, number 15. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chair, and I've. I've noted earlier, I don't have a problem with trying to make nepa work better and faster.
▶ 2:24:26And I would also note for the record, uh, the letter dated november 19th, 2025, that was submitted by over 100 different organizations, including tribal organizations, uh, small business organizations, from new jersey to new mexico. And they also note in this letter that they are interested in making the permitting process move quicker. I assume this was already entered into the record.
▶ 2:24:57Is that correct? Yeah. So so I think that this concept of needing to make sure nepa works better and faster in achieves its goals is important. My concern is whether it is how we make sure that those goals always keep the public at the forefront.
▶ 2:25:20Uh, and as part of the federal agency's environmental reviews under nepa, agencies must consider the open quote purpose and need of the proposed action. And that's whether they're evaluating a new water pipeline or coal mine. Uh, and that's what the nepa statute says. Each environmental document shall include a statement of purpose and need that briefly summarizes the underlying purpose and need for the proposed agency action.
▶ 2:25:49However, the speed act changes that and says the statement of purpose and need shall meet the goals of the applicant. So we've changed it to say what the need is, and then let's evaluate it to switching the focus so it becomes the goals of the applicant.
▶ 2:26:15And these kinds of word changes can be significant. I have actually participated in litigation surrounding issues around nepa, and we know that little word changes can make a huge difference when a court is evaluating.
▶ 2:26:35So I don't think we should be focusing on their needs, but we need to be focusing on the public interest because remember, nepa is only triggered because there are federal resources or dollars at stake. And those federal resources belong to the american people.
▶ 2:27:02So we have to keep in mind that americans right now are incredibly frustrated. They think that congress and president trump are focused on the rich and powerful, and not on working families and small businesses. But the reality is they have been worried about that before.
▶ 2:27:27So they have been concerned about democratic and republican administrations being too concerned about the rich and powerful, about the multinational corporations, about the billionaires.
▶ 2:27:41We need to show them that we are concerned about the people first and foremost, and there is no need to change and shift the priority to the goals of the applicant. But we need to keep it on the public. And, uh, my amendment would strike the proposed addition to the statement of purpose and need.
▶ 2:28:13It would keep our federal agencies focused on the public's interest rather than the corporate bottom line. Uh, I think we can make the nepa process more efficient without selling out the american public. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment, and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back for further discussion on the amendment. Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly support the gentlelady from new mexico's amendment.
▶ 2:28:37Uh, this is just a complete inversion of, uh, of nepa and a hijacking of the public interest. Uh, we have always required agencies, uh, actions to consider the agency's missions, statutory responsibility, the broader public interest. That's a framework that ensures that federal actions serve public purposes, not just the preferences of an individual project proponent.
▶ 2:29:05This language in the bill completely overhauls that approach. And it says that, where applicable, the statement of purpose and need shall meet the goals of the applicant. This is a blatant shift of the entire environmental review process, from what the public needs to what the project sponsors want, and beside the fact that it is this complete inversion.
▶ 2:29:26Um, it's also redundant because agencies already consider the applicant's needs where appropriate, but they balance that against things like statutory mandates, environmental responsibilities, and community needs. It's very important to understand what seems like a subtle wording change. It's actually a profound inversion of the entire public framework of a law like nepa.
▶ 2:29:51This bill would elevate the applicant's goal above everything else, and tell agencies that their goal is to blindly make that project happen and not to evaluate it objectively and fairly.
▶ 2:30:05For the public, this would have serious consequences if the project purpose and need is rewritten to, uh, meet the applicant's goals, then the range of alternatives, which is a central feature of nepa, completely collapses.
▶ 2:30:22Agencies would be limited to analyzing only the alternatives that meet the applicant's preferred outcomes and reasonable alternatives that would reduce environmental harm, lower costs, avoid impacts to communities, or better serve the public's interest. Um are excluded entirely by law. That is not reform. That is enabling biased analysis from the start. That is a thumb on the scale against the public.
▶ 2:30:50This would apply across the federal government. Private developers could define their goals narrowly, and the agency would be bound legally to adopt those goals, regardless of the harm that they could inflict. This provision would undermine public trust by signaling that the outcome is predetermined and the project sponsors preferences are the top priority, no matter the consequences for communities.
▶ 2:31:16And this is not the message we should be sending, uh, on public policy right now to the american people. My colleague's amendment would correct this mistake. If it's a mistake, I hope it's a mistake, but it would be corrected by this amendment. I urge support and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 2:31:35I recognize myself, I oppose the amendment because the amendment would strike the speed requirement that statements of purpose and need and environmental documents meet the goals of project applicants when such alignment is applicable. This language simply prevents agencies from interjecting political preferences into nepa reviews, which should be project agnostic. Urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back to further discussion on the amendment. There's no further discussion.
▶ 2:32:05The question is on the amendment offered by miss leger. Fernandez designated leger fernandez number 15. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed no. The opinion of the chair. The nos have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss leger fernandez, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated leger fernandez, number 16. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read.
▶ 2:32:42>> thank you so very much. Staffers on both sides are always so helpful on this committee. So again, I have to ask, and what my amendment seeks to do is clarify the question of who are you trying to serve in this bill? And look at some of the language choices that may have unintended consequences. It might not be what you intended with regards to some of the purpose that you have stated out about this bill.
▶ 2:33:12Um, and, and that goes to who could have standing to sue because the bill right now requires that you have a unique comment, uh, in order to have standing. So imagine this, uh, let me describe to you a case that I am very concerned about is in the sangre de cristo mountains, there is a beautiful river called the pecos river.
▶ 2:33:45It flows from the sangre de cristo mountains, a place where I played as a kid and still go play. It flows from there all the way through texas. There was a mining company that destroyed the watershed in the pecos mountains and the pecos river.
▶ 2:34:07It took years and a lot of public money to clean up the waste that that mining company left behind. So in 2019, when a foreign mining company tried to build a new mine on federal land in the pecos water watershed, the community came together to oppose the project. I went to those meetings.
▶ 2:34:29The rooms were filled because people did not want their water that they used for irrigation, the beautiful water that had been restored, and some great trout fishing. I know there are some people who love to go trout fishing on here. They wanted to keep them clean. Now under this law.
▶ 2:34:48Now, if all of those people that came to those village meetings to oppose that mine and who were ready to file comments in nepa process submitted comments they might not have standing because under this law, they would have had to have provided unique comments, not just a comment.
▶ 2:35:16So in essence, you're saying the more people who oppose a project, the less likely it is for them to be able to have standing, because the agency can say that is not a unique comment. And this is where we want to strike that. So you can keep your other issues. And I think it is important that there be direct harm for those who have standing.
▶ 2:35:41I don't have problems with that, but the idea that you are going to eliminate somebody to raise a court case because they might have shared the harm with the rest of the village and submitted comments, does not seem to me to make a lot of sense. Uh, you know, your comment is not a unique enough. It's not substantive enough. So my amendment is fairly simple.
▶ 2:36:09It's just striking that language in the bill that requires a member of the public to submit a unique and substantive comment, to able to have legal standing, um, and, uh, we can't remove the people from the process here. So let's put the people back into the process and vote yes on my amendment. And with that, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back for further discussion. Mr. crank, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:36:39I do oppose the amendment. According to the department of justice, nepa is the most litigated environmental statute. There is bad actors abuse the current nepa process as a delay tactic on projects. And a study by the breakthrough institute found that agencies want 80% of the appeal cases, meaning few of the environmental reviews ever changed, and that these lawsuits are not built on legitimate complaints.
▶ 2:37:06Instead, uh, they directed outside parties to resolve supposed deficiencies. The speed act would correctly direct parties to the comment process to rectify deficiencies. And so, by striking the standing requirements in the speed act, we would be allowing frivolous lawsuits to continue. That hurt, uh, investment in the united states and, again, make us more vulnerable to our enemies like china. So I do oppose the amendment, and I yield back.
▶ 2:37:37Thank you. >> gentleman. Yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hoffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I support the gentlelady from to strike this restriction that requires a person to have submitted a public comment to be able to challenge a harmful project in court. Um, without this amendment, uh, it's important to consider what happens if this bill becomes law.
▶ 2:38:03Uh, people who may not have had the time, who may not have had the resources or didn't have access to even submit a public comment, are completely excluded from seeking any kind of relief in our legal system. And that's assuming that there even is a public comment period at all, because this administration has made draft reviews and comments. Um, optional.
▶ 2:38:28So, you know, this just sort of speaks to what a cruel joke it is right now to shut the door on public participation and then turn around and say, you can't challenge government decisions made behind that closed door because you didn't participate. Uh, this is just another of the ways in which this bill. And let me be clear, the guy to my right is a reasonable guy. We all like him. All right.
▶ 2:38:54Uh, he's he's a good guy, but this is an extreme and radical bill. Uh, when it is just chock full of these things that create an impossible gantlet for people who are really hurt by bad projects and even illegal projects, from having any chance to challenge them. That is not an honest process. That is not a fine tuning of nepa.
▶ 2:39:19It's a dramatic, radical change to a law that protects the public, and we should support this amendment as one way to fix part of it. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment, miss hagerman? You're recognized. >> yes.
▶ 2:39:34Having had personal experience dealing with nepa projects and the abusiveness of ngos, uh, and various environmental groups that have literally made hundreds of millions of dollars over the years filing lawsuits against projects, not because the projects are are bad or that they're not beneficial, or that they aren't wanted by the community, but as a mechanism for making money.
▶ 2:39:59I think it's absolutely imperative that we find a way to limit the the types of organizations that can file a lawsuit challenging projects that have absolutely nothing to do with them. I consistently hear this terminology of of environmental justice. I don't know what you're referring to there, but from what I can see, the way that the equal access to justice act has been abused over time, the way that these lawsuits have been abused over the time to further the interests of ngos.
▶ 2:40:29But nobody in the communities themselves for actually benefiting from the projects that are going forward. It's wonderful to sit here in washington, D.C. and have these ideas bouncing around in your head about how horrible pipelines are or mines are, or oil and gas development is. But it isn't for the communities where those projects go forward. The people who live in those communities want those projects.
▶ 2:40:53They create jobs, they produce, they they make it so that people can stay in the community so that their kids can stay in the communities. It's great to sit back here and have these various ngos who make massive amounts of money suing the government, suing local governments, suing project proponents and think that you're doing good but you're not doing good. You're destroying the communities where these projects are needed.
▶ 2:41:18And it's important that the people there have their voices and are able to participate, and they will participate. The ones that are going to be affected by this are really the ones that don't have a dog in the hunt in the first place, or else they would have known about the project and participated in the process from the very beginning. So requiring that they participate from the beginning because it actually because it actually the project actually affects them. Personally, I think is an incredible improvement and absolutely necessary.
▶ 2:41:46Uh, as a model for modernization of nepa and these kinds of statutes, anybody who would be a who would be affected by the project would have participated from the beginning. It provides them standing in an organization that lives that that is headquartered a thousand miles away is in it for the bucks. So I think that this is a fabulous addition to nepa, and I oppose the amendment. Thank you. >> gentlelady yields back there further discussion, Mr.
▶ 2:42:15Stauber, you recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I oppose this amendment as well. But there's always a first in this committee. I've never heard the work product from jared golden or you, Mr. chair, be considered, quote, extreme and radical, end quote. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back for further discussion on the amendment. I recognize myself uh, I yield.
▶ 2:42:46>> to, uh. >> the gentlewoman. >> from uh. Oh. >> I ask to be recognized. I apologize for my total ignorance of the rules of this committee. >> okay, Mr. man, you're recognized. >> uh, ask permission to yield to my colleague from new mexico. >> gentleman yields. >> thank you. Although I would have probably preferred to listen to what you were going to say. And in a so I just want to respond to a couple of things. One is that, um, my amendment only seeks to strike section b, it doesn't.
▶ 2:43:15So with regards to the comments about you need to have be from that community. You need to be impacted by that community. That's section c. Such claim is filed by a party that has suffered or imminently will suffer direct harm. So that would still be in here with my amendment.
▶ 2:43:37It is the idea that we are going to let the agency say that if multiple people have been harmed and they have filed comments, that that is no longer unique, it's this a unique comment, substantive and unique. So the more people that are harmed and file comment, that would eliminate them from having standing to sue.
▶ 2:44:02And that might not have been what you were intending with this, but it's when you look at this language and you say, wait a minute, that couldn't be their intent, that they are going to eliminate the entire village of pecos and named the community. So a tribal community, which all might have a problem with something that's going in.
▶ 2:44:23And so the fact that you have multiple people submitting comments that will eliminate their ability to have standing has to be one of those unintended consequences. And we have the ability now to fix this. So I'm, I you know, I listen to the comments from the other side of the dais where they said, we need to make this move faster. We can't have this forever. You're keeping your 150 days. You're keeping that.
▶ 2:44:53You actually have to have form. But get rid of this one that lets the agency say, sorry, you're your neighbor submitted a similar concern so you don't get any standing. It's kind of this simple concept. Let the people have standing if they have been hurt, and if their neighbors have also been hurt, let them both have standing.
▶ 2:45:20It's a simple concept of giving recognition and respect to all the neighbors that might be hurt. And with that, thank you so much representative for the time. >> thank you I yield back. >> gentleman yields back to further discussion on the amendment.
▶ 2:45:39I recognize myself and I oppose the amendment because it would remove the requirement that litigants against a final agency action have participating meaningfully in the public comment process. The amendment would allow serial litigants to target projects after they are approved, rather than participating in the public process prescribed by nepa.
▶ 2:46:00Our goal should be to ensure that litigation is based on legitimate environmental concerns raised during the public comment period, not as a last ditch effort to delay projects through litigating every what if scenario. Uh, if you wonder what, uh, the law is like without this provision, just look at it right now. Look at how many projects get litigated and get litigated in this manner.
▶ 2:46:28Now we want to create a process where people can come to the table with legitimate concerns and have recourse on those concerns. But I believe this is a necessary provision to keep in the bill. I oppose the amendment and yield back there further discussion. Miss randall. You're recognized. >> Mr. chair, would you yield to a question? >> depends what your question.
▶ 2:46:56>> so I, um, I'm trying to understand the importance of keeping this clause. And I heard your statement, but, um, sort of imagine a scenario in which, um, say there's a construction project.
▶ 2:47:12Um, I'm thinking about my own district, and, um, it maybe happens on or between the usual and accustomed, um, land of two tribal nations, and they have very similar comments, uh, in opposition during the open comment period.
▶ 2:47:35And maybe even one that has a smaller, um, uh, legal team, which is the case for some of the tribes in my district, may have borrowed language from the tribe with the larger legal team. So they are not unique comments. They are substantively similar. Comments in.
▶ 2:47:56If we keep the language in this section and don't adopt congresswoman fernandez's amendment, do neither of the tribes have standing to sue in this scenario?
▶ 2:48:13>> so, miss randall, to my response to your question is what happens today is you get, uh, organizations that send out form letters and agencies get inundated with form letters that are identical, and those are not unique and substantive. Now, in my opinion, what you describe would be a unique and substantive, uh, comment.
▶ 2:48:34But, uh, the system is being gamed right now by these, um, you know, massive form letter, um, campaigns. And as long as the somebody participates in the process, they have a unique comment, they're still going to be protected by the law to be able to, um, challenge the decision.
▶ 2:49:02So, uh, pose the, uh, the amendment, I yield back your time. >> would, uh, would you could I would you yield your your your time for just a moment? >> with pleasure. >> okay. Thank you. I'll give you a real world example. The roadless rule from, uh, 2000, from 1999, 2000 and 2001, there were 1.2 million comments that were submitted on the roadless rule.
▶ 2:49:27And to say that that the system was gamed would be an understatement. Well over a million of those were identical. Yet when we were litigating that, and with all of the press, everything associated with it, the headline was always over a million comments supporting the roadless rule. There weren't a million comments supporting the roadless rule. There was one. That's the way the system has been gamed. And this is what stops these projects.
▶ 2:49:54This is the kind of activity that has gummed up the works for so long. And it's why we need the permitting reform, because that's what organizations have learned to do. And whether it's that project or others, that's exactly what is happening. Those million people shouldn't have standing. In fact, I don't believe that the environmental groups that submitted those comments should have had standing. They weren't participating in the process. They were simply trying to overwhelm the agency I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 2:50:26>> so I, um, understand the concern and I think the the impetus to, um, uh, avoid getting mired in, like, click activism, right? Our emails similarly to comment process often get inundated with a click to send the same message campaign.
▶ 2:50:47I just worry that there are, as, um, the sponsor of this amendment said, some unintended consequences to the language drafted.
▶ 2:51:00Um, in the underlying ans that would impact like real people, real tribal nations, real folks who have comments that aren't just somebody clicking a box, but that are folks who have similar and shared and meaningful, um, complaints and considerations that we should be listening to. I do think there's a problem in saying, oh, five people have the same concern.
▶ 2:51:29It must not be a real concern. >> if you would yield again and again from personal experience, the courts are going to grant both of those people standing or both of those organizations standing, because they will have participated in the process. But that's. >> not the language in the. >> annex, but it is. It is because they would, if there were a motion to dismiss filed, saying you don't have a unique comment that's going to be heard before the court and they're going to be able. >> to I'd like to reclaim my time. Thank you.
▶ 2:51:58I think that that's not the language that's in the ans. And speaking of your clarifying. Yeah. Thank you, thank you. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I'd like to yield my time to congresswoman leger fernandez. >> thank you. And I don't know if, uh, my colleague had finished, uh, and I think that what's interesting is in response to, uh, my colleagues very sort of simple question.
▶ 2:52:31Well, the response was, was, well, we don't like x, but you couldn't answer that question directly other than saying they're going to do this, but that is not what the language says.
▶ 2:52:46And that any time congress changes a statute, what the courts are going to do is say congress chose to change the standing and they are going to look at this language and say, you must have submitted a substantive and unique comment, and then the agency is going to have this incredible authority to say it's not substantive and
▶ 2:53:16Unique enough. And I would actually also push back on the fact that if a lot of people are commenting, that shows that there is an interest in this matter from the public at large. But the language does not change your section c, so if you have people commenting from across the nation because they're worried about it, you are still going to have to prove that you have a direct
▶ 2:53:49Harm. And that's key. And I think that that your we don't like the fact that there are a lot of comments. We don't like all that. That doesn't go to our concern about tribal members, about village members, about community members, about the fact that these projects can have direct harm on the local community. And that community can be more than one person.
▶ 2:54:15And if there is more than one person, then we need to be able to allow each of those people to be able to sue or individually sue or whoever, that we cannot sort of eliminate standing just because a project has impacted a lot of people and they have all commented, and I don't know that that was ever your intent. Mr. uh, chairman.
▶ 2:54:39Uh, but now that we have raised it, I would hope that you would help work with us so that we can clarify that that is not the intent, because it does say unique. And the definition is unique is somebody else didn't say it. So if somebody else said it, it's no longer unique. You have eliminated the unique part. And that's all that we're trying to get at.
▶ 2:55:07I'm not changing your a or c or d. So with that thank you very much representative dexter. And I yield back. >> Mr. chair I yield. >> lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion on the amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by miss leger. Fernandez designated leger fernandez number 16. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The no's have it.
▶ 2:55:40A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentleman from california, Mr. min, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated min number 17. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> uh. Thank you, chair wasserman, uh, ranking member hoffman for convening this hearing. And my amendment is very simple.
▶ 2:55:59It require the department of interior to repeal recent guidance that requires all solar and wind energy projects on federal lands to be personally approved by the interior secretary. Of course, this is a grossly inefficient, uh, requirement that puts politics over processes. Uh, and, uh, there's no doubt that we have an outdated permitting process that's out of step with the needs of our modern economy. Uh, we and we do need some kind of permitting reform.
▶ 2:56:29Uh, and I appreciate I just want to say the efforts of the chair here in trying to do this, I think, um, there's a broad and growing consensus that we need, uh, new permitting, uh, changes. Um, when we see projects across the country, whether renewables or otherwise, transmission, storage, uh, facing a delay, series of delays, redundancies and uncertainty, uh, that have really hampered our ability to put new energy on the grid. Uh, so we do need reform.
▶ 2:56:57Uh, and there's a right way to do that. Uh, thinking about streamlining reviews, improving predictability, ensuring proper staffing and permitting agencies, uh, but while retaining the core environmental safeguards that are at the heart of nepa. Uh, I think this is very important. And I know that the chair has tried to work across the aisle with some members to try to advance the ball here, and I do applaud him for those efforts. But I still think that this bill is fundamentally flawed.
▶ 2:57:25And one way in which I think is very problematic is that it ignores the clear elephant in the room. Uh, and that is the fact that the single most pressing barrier to permitting for the clean energy industry, which is now the cheapest form of energy and getting electrons online, is our president, donald trump. We're being asked to take up this permitting bill, uh, as this administration's actively ignoring existing laws on permitting and the fund's duly appropriated to it by congress, all to specifically block renewable energy products.
▶ 2:57:55Uh, one of the best tools we have to lower costs, uh, achieve energy independence. And over the past ten months, the longest ten months of my life, I would just add, uh, the trump administration has illegally canceled billions of dollars in federal grants, including a historic $1.2 billion contract to develop california's clean, energy, clean hydrogen hub in my district, which was set to create over 200,000 jobs here in the united states.
▶ 2:58:18This administration's efforts to halt the revolution wind project put thousands of us jobs across construction operations, shipbuilding and manufacturing at risk. And in a time when data centers, ai and other, um, exciting new technologies are driving up energy demand, when we've seen electricity prices across the country go up dramatically, uh, that single project would have provided enough energy to power upwards of 350,000 homes.
▶ 2:58:43It was 80% complete at the time that the administration intervened and halted construction. And while I'm pleased that the project has resumed, this only came about because a federal court stepped in, uh, over what donald trump was trying to do.
▶ 2:58:58My amendment would help end the obstruction of the administration, the illegal obstruction of the administration, uh, and actually address the single biggest barrier, uh, that, again, this this bill ignores, um, which is the lawless, uh, obstruction and opposition to clean energy that is in place right now.
▶ 2:59:17Uh, as we noted previously, uh, last year, president trump explicitly stated, uh, and requested that $1 billion in campaign contributions from oil industry executives, uh, in exchange, presumably for doing what they wanted. Uh, now, this administration has rewritten the rules to give doug burgum, a man with extensive ties to oil and gas, the sole power of deciding which renewable energy projects get approved, if any.
▶ 2:59:43Uh, that action by donald trump and that rule implemented by doug burgum, uh, ensures that political objectives, political biases, not market mechanisms, not expertise from people that are hired to look closely at these projects, that that is what determines if a project gets approved or not. And I represent a lot of clean energy developers, uh, they're putting a lot of electrons on the grid, but they're warning that this short sighted move is chilling investment in the united states.
▶ 3:00:11Uh, chilling new jobs, threatening to take, uh, supply chains and entire industries overseas, conceding clean energy, which we all I think know is, is a major, major front in the economy of the future, ceding that entire industry to china. Uh, this is strategically wrong. It is economically stupid, uh, and is counter to everything that science tells us, which is that we need to get a handle on climate change. Uh, so my amendment, which I hope you all will support, would repeal secretary burgum's order, uh, and allow for, uh, the status quo to come back into effect.
▶ 3:00:42So I think this is a smart amendment. I would urge you all to vote. Aye. And with that I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I strongly support the gentleman from southern california's amendment. Um, this insane department of interior memo is just another example, maybe one of the most glaring examples, but another example of this administration's attempt to sabotage clean industry, uh, the clean energy industry. We all know it's happening.
▶ 3:01:11We have to stop pretending that it's not. You can't have a serious conversation about meeting energy demand or permitting reform or anything else unless you confront an obvious reality like this. So this this memo, uh, requires all wind and solar projects on federal lands to get the personal approval of interior secretary doug burgum. We've never seen anything like this. And the irony is just impossible to ignore.
▶ 3:01:38My republican colleagues keep insisting they want faster permits, but all this memo does is throw all clean energy projects into a black box where they have no chance of ever escaping. Since this memo was released, not a single solar or wind project in any state has received approval under the new memo. So come on folks, if you let's end the charade.
▶ 3:02:05If we're going to have a serious conversation that is technology neutral, that is honest about things like parity and neutrality, you got to at least support this amendment because this is like a cartoonishly extreme policy we're seeing from this administration to try to kill off clean energy. And if you're unwilling to confront even this, it's pretty darn hard to take you seriously about the rest of the subject in the remaining time. Mr.
▶ 3:02:34Chairman, I want to request unanimous consent to enter into the record. Uh, this joint statement on permitting reform negotiations. And this is from the sustainable energy and environmental environment coalition, a joint statement with the progressive caucus and with the new dems coalition. So this is a huge swath of the democratic caucus here in the congress.
▶ 3:02:57And it outlines the leaders belief of these caucuses, that current actions of the trump administration and congressional republicans preventing good faith, bipartisan permitting reform negotiations have to be confronted. I want to quote from this statement, any serious permitting reform package must address, as a threshold matter, the trump administration's active undermining of america's clean energy industry by using every tool it can find to slow or block projects.
▶ 3:03:25Um, and you can burn off my time on this unanimous consent request. I'm going to go ahead and give you another quote from this joint statement, uh, ensuring that clean energy projects are treated fairly and can move forward where appropriate is the prerequisite for serious practical negotiations on a reform package capable of meeting the nation's energy needs.
▶ 3:03:47Additionally, to be comfortable with any sort of agreement, we need to be able to trust that this administration is going to follow the law that we write. So that's from, uh, these three major caucuses within the democratic caucus. Democrats are interested in working with you on these subjects, Mr. chair, but we've got to start with a serious conversation about this absurd fatwa on clean energy that's being carried out by the trump administration. I yield back. >> without objection.
▶ 3:04:17So ordered. Further discussion on the amendment. I recognize myself, I oppose the amendment. I'm going to say once again, the speed act is project agnostic, and it is specific to nepa. This amendment would go beyond the bill's scope to advance top specific energy policy. Nowhere in the bill will you find any kind of top specific energy policy reference. This amendment would change that.
▶ 3:04:45They the as a text, includes language that provides clear timelines for environmental reviews and accompanying authorizations for all forms of energy, all forms of infrastructure, and every project that comes before the nepa process. Instead, we have worked with Mr. golden on an amendment that bolsters the project certainty language in the bill to protect previously approved authorizations from being improperly revoked.
▶ 3:05:12I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back. Further discussion on the amendment. If there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. men designated men 17. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? No opinion of the chair. The nos have it. I request a recorded vote. Recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment have been postponed.
▶ 3:05:38Recognize the gentlewoman from morgan, miss dexter, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated dexter 23. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chair. We all recognize that categorical exclusions are an efficient way to permit routine actions with minimal environmental impact. But we also know that there have been far too many instances where they've been misused or expanded without appropriate oversight.
▶ 3:06:04My amendment restores one of the most basic elements of good government permitting transparency. It ensures that agencies notify and involve the public when they create or adopt new categorical exclusions. Apply extraordinary circumstances when using them, and report to congress each year on how often they rely on this tool.
▶ 3:06:26As ranking member of the oversight and investigations subcommittee, I know how critical it is that we have safeguards in place to protect our constituents and the places where they live, work, and play. Transparency and accountability are not roadblocks. They are fundamentals of responsible governance. Categorical exclusions, or c's are useful for everyday low impact work, such as repairing a fence, replacing a sign, or performing minor maintenance.
▶ 3:06:53But this bill dramatically expands their use, and we must pair that with expansion and with basic that expansion with basic transparency. First, the public deserves to know how agencies plan to use these. Under the bill, agencies could use another agency's ce procedures or create a new ce with no public notice at all. Committees would have no idea. Aces being created, borrowed, or applied.
▶ 3:07:22My amendment fixes that. It simply requires agencies to notify the public and accept feedback before adopting or establishing a ce. This gives the public, tribal nations, and local communities a meaningful chance to identify concerns early before harm occurs. It's straightforward, common sense and democratic. This amendment also improves consistency and practicality.
▶ 3:07:47Today, some agencies have strong public processes for cs, others provide no transparency whatsoever. This amendment standardizes ce adoption across the federal government and creates a clean, unified process. We also need to know how often agencies rely on c's. Annual reporting to congress gives us the data we need to detect patterns, catch misuse, and conduct real oversight.
▶ 3:08:12This protects our landscapes for future generations and strengthens the integrity of the permitting process. Finally, it is important to recognize that even routine projects sometimes have unusual environmental circumstances. For example, routine tree trimming around transmission lines usually has a very limited and well understood impact, so staff can quickly process a ce to let that work move forward. But if an endangered bat roosts in those trees, the situation changes.
▶ 3:08:42In that case, agency staff need to take a closer look to avoid harming a protected species. These situations are what nepa calls extraordinary circumstances. Every agency already has procedures for evaluating them. They ensure that c's are used appropriately and that a routine action doesn't inadvertently cause significant harm. My amendment does not add any new reviews.
▶ 3:09:06It just clarifies that agencies should do extraordinary circumstances checks before using a ce. Whether the c is in their own agency or when they've adopted from another agency. Transparency shouldn't be partizan. It strengthens public trust and improves outcomes for everyone involved. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this amendment. Thank you. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? Uh, ranking member hoffman, you recognized?
▶ 3:09:38>> thank you, Mr. chairman. I support the gentlelady from oregon's amendment. So categorical exclusions are a really important tool. Uh, they're used thousands of times a year. It's a great way for federal agencies to approve quickly, low impact projects and authorizations. Um, the underlying bill, however, fundamentally changes processes for categorical exclusions in a few ways. It makes it so that no one can ever sue to challenge, um, the establishment of new seis.
▶ 3:10:07And it says that a federal agency. This is kind of a nifty trick. A federal agency can actually grab categorical exclusions that are created for different agencies. So, uh, these are huge fundamental changes. It has the potential to dramatically expand. Expand the scope and use of categorical exclusions far further than it should if we're concerned about abuse, if we're concerned about protecting the integrity of the process.
▶ 3:10:36So I strongly support my colleague's amendment, which would just add a simple common sense transparency, uh, provision. It would require agencies to publish proposed new seis for public comment and to provide notice wherever a ce is used, report annually to congress so we can make sure that this is all working appropriately and ensure that agencies apply their extraordinary circumstances safeguards, uh, before relying on acp, including when adopting
▶ 3:11:07One from another agency. This is just common sense guardrails. I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back. >> thank you. Is there a further discussion on the amendment? I will recognize myself. I oppose the amendment. This amendment would impose unnecessary administrative paperwork and situations where agencies are addressing actions deemed to have minimal environmental impact. The amendment would force agencies to undergo notice and comment procedures every time they use categorical exclusions, and report them as well.
▶ 3:11:36This would crush agencies with paperwork as as they use categorical exclusions for hundreds of tedious administrative actions. Moreover, the fiscal responsibility act already established a simplified process allowing agencies to adopt categorical exclusions listed in another agency's nepa procedures. This amendment would impose more regulatory burden and delays that are contrary to the goals of permitting reform.
▶ 3:12:03I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back if there is no further discussion. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by miss dexter, designated dexter 23. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. >> Mr. chair, I request a recorded vote.
▶ 3:12:34>> a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentleman from oregon, miss dexter, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated dexter 29. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chair. If this committee is serious about improving and accelerating federal permitting, then we have to be honest about one of the biggest challenges facing our agencies today.
▶ 3:13:00They do not have the staffing to do the work that congress is asking of them. Let me be very clear about what this amendment does. It requires federal permitting agencies to determine whether they have enough staff, including in each field office, to carry out permitting processes. If they do not, it directs the office of personnel management to develop and execute a plan to increase their staffing capacity.
▶ 3:13:24And once that is in place, it gives agencies targeted direct hire authority so they can quickly bring on highly qualified personnel to fill in those gaps. This amendment is simple, practical and absolutely essential if we want permitting to move faster. Permitting is a complex issue, but the process is often slowed down because there simply aren't enough staff to complete these reviews.
▶ 3:13:50In a recent survey of over 200 industry experts, 49% of respondents cited insufficient agency staffing as a major source of delay. Gao has repeatedly found that agencies report limited staff and expertise as major barriers to completing environmental reviews and meeting project schedules. This is basic accountability. We cannot demand more from federal agencies, while refusing to give them the people needed to carry out the law.
▶ 3:14:17My amendment addresses that problem directly and responsibly, requiring each major permitting agency to assess whether they have enough staff to meet the obligations we are placing on them is the first major step in solving this issue. We cannot solve the problem if we don't know the extent of it. If agencies find they cannot meet these obligations with their current workforce, a comprehensive plan to address the problem is essential.
▶ 3:14:42This ensures agencies are not left drowning in new deadlines without the personnel they need to succeed. Finally, we must give the agencies the tools they need to address these staffing gaps and allow them to hire staff and get the permits done on time. This amendment does not grow bureaucracy. It does not add new layers of review. It simply ensures that the people responsible for permitting processing are not set up to fail.
▶ 3:15:11If we mandate faster timelines, we also must give them the workforce to meet them. If we want permitting to be predictable and efficient. Congress has the responsibility to resource the system appropriately.
▶ 3:15:25This amendment will improve efficiency, accountability, and practical implementation and as a complete like recognition that this amendment is likely to be ruled non-germane, I will proactively withdraw the amendment at this time, but I am optimistic that we will work through an acceptable pathway to addressing the issue with the majority as negotiations move forward. Thank you, Mr. chair. I yield back. >> thank you. Is there further discussion on the amendment.
▶ 3:15:56>> Mr. chairman? >> uh, the amendment is withdrawn, so there will be no further discussion. Thank you, miss dexter. I recognize the gentleman from rhode island, Mr. magaziner, for the purpose of offering an amendment design designated magaziner number six. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read and Mr. speaker, I, I. >> reserve a point of order against this amendment. >> point of order is reserved.
▶ 3:16:28Mr. magaziner. You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, as has been discussed, the trump administration is taking a whole of government approach to block clean energy projects from getting affordable american made clean energy to the grid.
▶ 3:16:43This includes abusing the federal land policy management act, or flpma multiple use mandate to require bogus math, which it calls capacity density to disadvantage solar and onshore wind projects in the approval process.
▶ 3:16:59An order from the secretary of interior in august instructs agencies to evaluate renewable energy development based on so-called capacity density, which is calculated by how much space solar panels and wind turbines take up because they're not drilling into the ground. This policy is ridiculous, it's discriminatory, and it does nothing to make energy more affordable for consumers. In fact, quite the opposite.
▶ 3:17:23It is just a mechanism in the trump administration's culture war against clean energy that is doing nothing to address rising costs. The administration is also claiming that the deployment of offshore wind farms, which we have experience with in rhode island, is inconsistent with the outer continental shelf land acts. Multiple requirements for offshore activities.
▶ 3:17:45The administration has issued a stop work order for offshore wind projects, citing unsubstantiated requirements with no clear or convincing evidence. I come from a state where offshore wind is an essential part of how we are going to make electricity more affordable.
▶ 3:18:03I know my colleagues have heard me talk about this before, but the revolution wind project, which the administration has tried to block, an offshore wind project that is 85% complete, is contracted to deliver electricity to the grid at two thirds of the market rate. This is american made clean energy that will provide much needed relief to consumers. And this is just one example. These projects have already been studied to death.
▶ 3:18:31They have already had to go through significant reviews, and there is no reason for the administration to arbitrarily block them now that they have been approved. And just to be clear, we can fix the nepa process and we should. But if the administration continues to use axilla. To block these projects, then the effect will be the same. My amendment prevents the administration from discriminating against clean energy projects at every opportunity for approvals, authorizations or permits.
▶ 3:19:01This amendment amends the definition of multiple use to make it consistent with the deployment of conventional energy. Instructs the secretary of interior to proactively manage public lands to facilitate renewable energy resources in addition to conventional energy. Requires the secretary to take into consideration the energy generation of offshore renewable energy leases and renewable energy mandates when granting authorizations on the outer continental shelf.
▶ 3:19:30Now, I understand that, uh, our republican colleagues do not intend to let this amendment even receive a vote today because the amendment is not specific to nepa, but all of the subject matter in my amendment does fall within this committee's jurisdiction. So there is no reason why it can't be included in the bill. And I need it to be included in the bill in order to get to yes on the underlying legislation.
▶ 3:19:58So I'll ask my colleagues, is it your intention to rule the amendment out of order? Uh, if so, I'll withdraw to spare everybody the time it will take to challenge the ruling. But I really hope you'll at least allow us consider to allow us to have a vote. >> I intend to, it's not germane. >> all right, well, in that case, with with regret. Um, because I again, uh, feel strongly that this will, uh.
▶ 3:20:29This administration policy on and on flpma, uh, is hurting american energy independence is raising costs for consumers, is based on a culture war against clean energy, not what is best for ratepayers. And my amendment once again falls within the jurisdiction of this committee. So it could be added to the bill if our republican colleagues would give us a vote on it.
▶ 3:20:52Uh, since they have communicated that they intend to block this amendment from consideration, uh, I will withdraw and I yield back. >> the amendment is withdrawn. I recognize the gentleman from rhode island, Mr. magaziner, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated magaziner number seven. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read, Mr. magaziner. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, I am very encouraged by the passage of the amendment by Mr.
▶ 3:21:22Stauber and Mr. golden earlier today. Uh, to make it harder for any administration to block a project that has been fully permitted and approved. We have seen the importance of this in my home state with the revolution wind project that I mentioned earlier, this offshore wind project scheduled and contracted to deliver electricity to the grid next year at below the current rate. The current market rate will lower cost for taxpayers.
▶ 3:21:47It was 80% complete, 45 turbines already built, and the trump administration put a stop work order in place. There were workers, trades workers stuck on boats offshore, waiting to find out whether they were going to get to get back on the job or not.
▶ 3:22:07All across the country, from solar projects in nevada to onshore wind in idaho, the trump administration is indiscriminately canceling projects that have already been fully permitted and approved, showing that they care more about culture wars than lowering costs for americans. Now, the language that was approved earlier will make it harder for any administration to arbitrarily block projects that have gone through the nepa process for political reasons. And this is a good thing.
▶ 3:22:34That is why I supported the earlier amendment. However, the earlier amendment does nothing to provide relief for all of the clean energy projects that the administration has already moved to block. My amendment will take the good language that the chairman's amendment put into the bill and make it retroactive to january 20th, 2025. It is important that we do this for two reasons.
▶ 3:23:01First, if the administration is allowed to arbitrarily block clean energy projects that it has stalled over the last year, it will deal a crushing financial blow to the clean energy industry, making it harder for them to invest in new projects that can lower energy costs for consumers.
▶ 3:23:20Second, if we do not adopt my amendment, not only will clean energy projects already being held up by the administration not be covered, but also any other projects that they decide to block from now until final passage of the bill? We need the good certainty language that the chair that Mr. stauber that Mr. golden allowed into the bill earlier today. We need that.
▶ 3:23:44And it's good that at least prospectively, the trump administration, after passage of this bill, will not be allowed to engage in these dirty tricks to block projects that have already gone through the approval process. But if we all agree that that certainty language is good to have in the future, we ought to agree that it is also good to have in the present. I urge adoption of what I believe is a very common sense amendment, and I yield back. >> there's a further discussion on the amendment.
▶ 3:24:11If there's no further discussion, uh, I will recognize myself. I oppose the amendment as it is unnecessary. This amendment adds a right to action. If any agency rescinds an environmental document. However, the bill already prohibits such an action without the project sponsor's approval. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion.
▶ 3:24:41The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. seth magaziner, designated seth magaziner number seven. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. >> Mr. chairman, I request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentleman from rhode island, Mr. magaziner, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated magaziner number eight. Without objection, the amendment is considered read.
▶ 3:25:12Mr. magaziner. >> thank you. Chairman. Uh, this amendment addresses the same issue that, uh, representative dexter attempted to address with her amendment that was ruled out of order. And that is that if we are going to have faster, more streamlined permitting than agencies need to have adequate staffing to do that, work quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately, the trump administration has taken a chainsaw to agency staffing in charge of processing permits.
▶ 3:25:42This does not make the process more efficient. Quite the opposite. And while I appreciate that the intent of the speed act, uh, the intent of the speed act to include deadlines, to issue timely decisions and prevent unnecessary delays, this must be paired with staffing. Adequate staffing or mistakes will be made that could be more costly and cause more time in the long run. The problem with judicial review and the speed act is that it limits courts to providing a remand.
▶ 3:26:09I support preventing unnecessary delays, but not applying a one size fits all approach that doesn't factor the gravity of the deficiency. So this amendment, my amendment, will give courts the authority to vacate a project approval or issue an injunction to temporarily halt a project if the court determines that lack of agency staffing led to an incomplete or inadequate review. It's very simple.
▶ 3:26:35We are empowering a court to say that the agency needs to go back to work and finish the job. If lack of staffing is the reason for an incomplete or inadequate review, of course, the overall intent here is to have it never get to that point, because staffing will be adequate to begin with. If this committee wants to achieve agency efficiency, it will ensure that there are enough staff with relevant expertise to support permitting capacity.
▶ 3:27:04Um, I believe this amendment is in order, and it's an attempt to address the staffing issue, which is a serious issue. Unfortunately, given the slash and burn management style that the trump administration has brought to multiple agencies. With that, I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion? The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. magaziner designated magaziner number eight. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? No, no.
▶ 3:27:33In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. And the amendment is not agreed to request. >> the yeas and nays are the a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentleman from rhode island, Mr. magaziner, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated magaziner number nine. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Mr. magaziner, you are up. >> thank you very much.
▶ 3:27:57Um, removing duplicative approvals to issue permits is a common sense reform included in the underlying bill, and it's necessary to make it easier to build projects, to lower costs, to get more energy to the grid. And let me be clear, I support the notion that if a state, local or tribal government is already doing a review, that the federal government doesn't necessarily need to do its own review, on top of that, it's duplicative. It's time consuming, it's unnecessary.
▶ 3:28:26I support the intent of this section of the speed act. If a review is already being conducted, there's no need to do it twice. While I appreciate that the speed act includes language that tries to accomplish this, my concern is that it does not take into consideration that some states have much less stringent environmental review processes than the federal standards.
▶ 3:28:49The speed act, as it is, does not outline what criteria those state or tribal reviews would need to meet in order to supplant a federal review, and I believe this is a necessary common sense fix to ensure that these reviews are sufficient substitutes that don't cut corners in plain speak.
▶ 3:29:09What we're saying here is, you know, if you're going to replace a federal agency's environmental review with a state level review, that's fine, as long as the state level review is as rigorous in terms of allowing public comment, in terms of considering all the subject matter that a federal agency would consider in their review. If that's the case, then by all means, let's not duplicate the process.
▶ 3:29:33But if there's a state or a tribe that does not meet the federal standard, we should not water down the federal standard by allowing that state or tribal review to take precedence. My amendment clarifies that state and tribal environmental reviews need to be substantively the same as a federal environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, whichever is appropriate.
▶ 3:29:54This includes process and substance, including equivalent opportunities for public notice, comment, and judicial review, not allowing for any categorical exclusions that aren't available at the federal level, and not and not allowing, um, and upholding environmental review that a state or tribe renders ineffective.
▶ 3:30:13I urge my colleagues to support this simple common sense safeguard to preserve the integrity of environmental reviews while meeting the overall goal in the underlying text to eliminate duplicative processes. And I yield back. >> for further discussion on the amendment. I will recognize myself. I oppose this amendment. This amendment removes agency discretion to determine whether state or tribal projects or actions serve the function of agency compliance with nepa.
▶ 3:30:43First off, the amendment references substantive standards that do not currently exist under nepa, which is purely procedural statute. Additionally, this language uses new undefined terms that would invite additional litigation, making it difficult for states and tribes to apply their own respective reviews to satisfy nepa requirements. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion?
▶ 3:31:12The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. magaziner designated magaziner number nine. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? No, no. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> I request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentlewoman from washington, miss randall, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated randall number 20. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read.
▶ 3:31:42Miss randall, you are now recognized. >> thank you. Um, Mr. chair, this amendment may call back to some of our previous conversation. It. Um, the amendment ensures that tribes have appropriate opportunities to engage in, um, the judicial review process.
▶ 3:32:08It exempts the tribes from the standing restrictions and the 21 day time frame to become a cooperating agency on a project. And this is important because for far too long on all of us know this. The federal government has made decisions without consulting tribal nations. And this legacy of exclusion has profound consequences for tribal sovereignty, resources and self-determination, and shortening the time frame for which tribes are able to engage.
▶ 3:32:43Will restrict their ability to ensure their interests and rights are upheld and their ability to hold government agencies accountable. We have to keep in mind that many tribes around the country, including those in my district, have limited staff capacity and funding opportunity, and it's unfair to ask tribal nations to do more with less.
▶ 3:33:06We just, um, put so much burden on many tribal nations during the extended shutdown period in which many of them were picking up the slack for head start programs and snap programs, delivering support to communities without the federal funding that they rely on, we should not be limiting the time in which a nation is able to engage in the nepa process.
▶ 3:33:35A rushed judicial review doesn't provide justice. It creates new barriers. Each of the 12 federally recognized tribes in my district, and all of those around the nation, deserve adequate time to review, assess, and respond to proposals that could affect their treaty protected lands, waters and cultural resources.
▶ 3:33:57And I think especially given that we there was no willingness from your side of the I don't know what we call this this, uh, committee room. Um, to think again about, um, the unique nature of each complaint as, um, representative fernandez suggested with her amendment, accepting this amendment would ensure that tribal nations,
▶ 3:34:28Even if they are, um, seeking to appeal or review based on similar challenges, similar impacts on the environment and their usual and accustomed lands and waters have the standing to do that. Thank you. And I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? >> yes. >> ranking member huffman, you are recognized. >> thank you. Um, Mr.
▶ 3:34:55Chairman, so I do support the gentlelady from washington's amendment, uh, because it respects tribal sovereignty and would ensure proper tribal consultation. Um, these are values that we all say that we support. Uh, but we have to, uh, enact this amendment under this law as written, this bill, because right now, it would shut a lot of tribes out of the nepa process, perhaps inadvertently.
▶ 3:35:22But the underlying bill would impose new standing restrictions that make it harder for the public to access judicial review. And tribes are going to get caught up in that. Tribes bear unique cultural, environmental, and treaty based risks from federal actions. We all know that, and we should never prevent them from defending their rights in court. Tribal governments and organizations also are often underfunded.
▶ 3:35:47They are rural and they might not have access to legal counsel within these highly constrained time frames. Under this bill, 150 day time frame is just one of many ways in which it's really hard to run. The gantlet of public participation under this bill.
▶ 3:36:05So by exempting federally recognized tribes from these standing limitations, the amendment would protect their ability to challenge agency decisions that affect their lands, water, cultural resources and treaty obligations. And it would also, as the gentlelady said, remove an unnecessary and unrealistic constraint on tribal participation as cooperating agencies.
▶ 3:36:27So this is a 21 day deadline that would force tribes, when they're serving as cooperating agencies, to make very rapid decisions about engaging in what could be very complex federal reviews that could affect their sacred sites, subsistence resources, long term environmental health. Tribes are repeatedly telling us that they need more time, adequate time and consultation, not arbitrary cutoffs like this.
▶ 3:36:56So this amendment, uh, honors the federal trust responsibility, strengthens government to government consultation, and ensures that tribal governments can meaningfully participate on a reasonable basis. Uh, in the review process. It's a critical correction to this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it, I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, I will recognize myself. I oppose this amendment.
▶ 3:37:21We have worked closely with the tribes and local stakeholders to ensure that frivolous litigation may not be levied against tribal led projects that are on lands that are currently held in trust for the tribes. The ans also includes language ensuring that tribes and local governments are invited to participate in the nepa process as cooperating agencies. Early in the process. The ute indian tribe has also endorsed h.r. 4776, stating in quotes.
▶ 3:37:47The speed act addresses long standing challenges the tribe has long advocated to resolve by streamlining, permitting, and reducing the uncertainty and delays that disproportionately burden tribes. H.r. 4776 is designed to ease regulatory burdens for everyone, including tribes. This amendment would create unfair and inconsistent carve outs and an otherwise impartial process. I oppose the amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 3:38:17If there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by miss randall. Designated randall 20. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. >> mister chair. Request a recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentlewoman from washington, miss randall, for the purpose of offering an amendment. Designated randall 22.
▶ 3:38:45Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. Miss randall, you are recognized. >> thank you, mister chair. Um. This amendment simply ensures that offshore oil and gas lease sales mandated mandated by the, uh, big fill in the blank bill that we passed in july still have to go through the nepa process.
▶ 3:39:08Uh, as a representative from washington's sixth district, I have the great honor of representing a district with some of the most pristine shorelines, most beautiful beaches, and truly thriving fisheries in the country and tribal communities steward large swaths of these coastlines, not just in my district, but certainly up along the pacific coast.
▶ 3:39:35Washington state alone has more than 3000 miles of shoreline, but under this administration, the unfortunate reality is that none of that coastline is safe. In his first term, the trump administration proposed lease sales covering nearly every united states coastline. And while thankfully those sales never moved forward due to litigation and strong bipartisan opposition.
▶ 3:40:00Secretary burgum has said that the administration may be considering new opportunities, and that's already proven to be the case with the mandatory offshore oil and gas lease sales mandated mandated under the big ugly law. This pouring fuel on the fire is dangerous, and the department of interior is now claiming those lease sales do not need to go through the nepa process.
▶ 3:40:28It's an abdication of the responsibility to coastal communities, to tribal nations, to fishermen and to our future, all of whom rely on proper and governmental review and permitting to ensure that our ecosystem won't be harmed. Harmed. Not today. Not for our grandchildren's grandchildren, not for seven generations to come.
▶ 3:40:51That's why I'm introducing this amendment to make it explicit to this rogue administration that they must conduct environmental reviews in accordance with nepa for the lease sales required under the big ugly law, and that those sales must include public comment periods and analysis of the impact of the sales. I urge all my colleagues to join me in once again standing in bipartisan solidarity to protect the coastal communities that we all cherish. I yield back.
▶ 3:41:21>> thank you. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Ranking member huffman, you are recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I support the gentlelady's amendment, um, to reaffirm that offshore oil and gas lease sales must undergo a nepa review.
▶ 3:41:36Now, um, we know the department of interior recently has claimed that the mandatory lease sales under the one big ugly law, um, are not subject to nepa, but this is a departure from long standing policy. Nepa has always applied to offshore drilling. And, uh, the administration might argue that they don't have discretion with respect to these mandatory lease sales.
▶ 3:42:02There's still independent value in public transparency and environmental review. Communities at least deserve those basic protections for environmental analysis and public comment, and especially with this administration now targeting virtually every coastal community in the united states, including the entire west coast. I guess not mar a lago, though, in a couple of other places that, um, will be protected.
▶ 3:42:29But, um, if ever we need to make sure that we have transparency and public input and environmental review, it is now. So this is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? I will recognize myself. I oppose this amendment. This amendment would require additional environmental reviews for congressionally mandated offshore lease sales. This amendment is not project neutral, as a speed act is intended to be.
▶ 3:42:55Instead, it targets offshore oil and gas leases and goes beyond the scope of this bill. The trump administration is working to abide by the timing requirements and statute and applicable laws governing offshore lease sales in question. I would remind my friends across the aisle that the only reason the working families tax cut law had to direct offshore lease sales is because the biden administration let the five year program lapse and then offered the fewest amount of lease sales in our country's history.
▶ 3:43:22Moreover, the federal offshore oil and gas program in the gulf of america has undergone continuous environmental review process since its inception. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I and I yield. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion? The question is on the amendment offered by miss randall designated randall 22. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:43:54>> me again. Thank you, Mr. chair. Um, we have discussed quite a bit. >> and miss randall. >> oh, I do want to record the question to request a recorded vote. >> yes. There you go. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentlewoman from washington, miss randolph, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated randall 31.
▶ 3:44:23Without objection, the amendment is considered read. You are now recognized, miss randall, for five minutes. >> a little too eager. Um, we've talked a lot in this hearing room on the floor and throughout the capitol and in our communities about the impacts of the decreasing size of federal agencies, the layoffs and furloughs and illegal riffs of the workforce that helps to ensure that
▶ 3:44:57Agencies that do important work, like monitoring fish returns and water quality, and ensuring that our forest lands are maintained. Are are not understaffed. We've seen such an incredible impact from workers being fired. And and it's not just the demoralization of the workers who are left.
▶ 3:45:25It's not just the, um, negative impact on the communities that we live in. It's also an inability to efficiently deliver results in permitting.
▶ 3:45:40I worry that with this streamlining of the process, as well as a complete gutting of the federal workforce, that our environment is going to be. Damaged to an unimaginable extent.
▶ 3:46:01We don't have the people to review the applications in a way that ensures that we are thinking thoughtfully about the impacts long term. We don't have the people to ask the tough questions to make sure that we're not overlooking something.
▶ 3:46:20We don't have the people, because this president and his administration have been arbitrarily and capriciously and vindictively in some, in some cases, laying off workers who are doing important work. This amendment is simple. It says this act shall not take effect until staffing levels at permitting agencies and offices match or exceed the levels of january 1st, 2025.
▶ 3:46:47I think it is a blatantly irresponsible to expect us to be able to speed up these reviews in the manner intended by the underlying legislation, while also dramatically cutting the workforce. Who is meant to be doing that work? What are we going to, like depend on ai to approve these permits?
▶ 3:47:10Or the interns that elon musk hired to control f cut the federal government? This is a dangerous direction for which we are completely unprepared. Um, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. chair. I yield back. >> so further discussion on the amendment. Ranking member huffman, you are recognized. >> yeah. Mr. chairman, I just want to strongly support the gentlelady's amendment.
▶ 3:47:38This is one of these other things that we can't simply pretend is not happening. We're talking about a department of interior alone, one of one of many permitting agencies we we care about that has lost 11% of its staff this year, 7500 less people. Uh, and those people are stretched all over, uh, the vast public land estate and all of the different things that we ask of them.
▶ 3:48:02So, look, if you want to have speed, you got to address the need for an actual professional staff, even if you're reducing the nepa process to this somewhat meaningless paper pushing exercise, as this bill would do, you got people to push the paper. So I support this amendment. It's an important part of the consideration. If we're serious about moving forward together. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 3:48:31Is there further discussion on the amendment. >> Mr. chair? >> Mr. stauber, you're recognized. >> so I think that when we had secretary burgum in this room, I remember him making a comment about staffing. He says we not only have to look at input, but we also have to look on the output of the staffing. I thought that was very wise. Uh, Mr. chair, may I ask unanimous consent, uh, to put in the following letter from the national association of manufacturers manufacturers in support of h.r.
▶ 3:49:004776 to be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> and then, Mr. chair, one more ask unanimous consent that the following statement from the united association of union plumbers and pipefitters in support of h.r. 4776 be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> and I yield. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion, miss elfreth? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I would like to thank my colleague, uh, congresswoman randall, for this really important discussion here.
▶ 3:49:28I you're probably sick of me saying this, but I represent 45,000 federal workers in my district, and many of whom were impacted one way or another by the doge massacre last spring. Um, and I trust that we can all agree that the right number of staffing to implement this bill is not an arbitrary number, it's what are we actually going? How many people do we need in these agencies to be efficient? We can all agree that currently is not the case.
▶ 3:49:55There's pieces of this bill that address that I'm excited about, the permitting act that's coming up for a vote next. I'm proud co-sponsor of that, that bill that's going to help modernize a very antiquated system. But we at the same time cannot ignore we can't legislate in vacuums and pretend like this assault on the federal workforce isn't simultaneously happening down the street from the white house. And so I firmly support this bill. Uh, we need to figure out the adequate number of staffing to deliver the services taxpayers expect.
▶ 3:50:25And we can't ignore that very question. And I look forward to working with this committee to making sure we can implement reasonable legislation with adequate staffing attached to it. With that, I yield. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 3:50:40I recognize myself, I oppose this amendment because it would prevent the bill from taking effect until staffing levels return to january 1st, 2025 levels, uh, through the reforms included in this bill, agencies undertaking nepa reviews will be able to dedicate more time and resources to projects that fall under the true meaning of major federal action. Also, agency staff will not be inundated with time consuming, burdensome, duplicative reviews.
▶ 3:51:07I'd also note that agencies receive significant funding for staffing in the ira, but permitting processes thwarted the projects that, uh, were proposed from the ira. We have seen this over and over, no matter how much money agencies have received for permitting activities, the results have been lackluster. I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do so as well, and yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion.
▶ 3:51:37The question is on the amendment offered by miss randall designated randall number 31. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair, the nos have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize ranking member hoffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated and sorry, number nine. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'm pinch hitting for my colleague, representative ansari.
▶ 3:52:06And, um, this is an amendment which fixes a blatant anti-science provision in the bill. Uh, the underlying bill says that once an application is filed or a notice of intent is published, whichever comes first, no agency can be required to consider any new scientific or technical information or research that becomes publicly available after that date.
▶ 3:52:29It essentially, uh, freezes, uh, the consideration in amber at that point, as if nothing can ever change. Let's think about that. If new climate data is released, agencies would have to ignore it. If updated wildlife surveys come in, they got to ignore that, too.
▶ 3:52:48If new groundwater modeling shows contamination risks of a critical aquifer or new seismic data shows a fault line is far more active than previously assumed, uh, they would be required to pretend none of that exists. Permitting reviews require careful attention, and while it's underway, it is possible that conditions change.
▶ 3:53:13Science advances, new information is discovered, and to tell agencies to freeze themselves in time. At that moment of an application, um simply hinders a meaningful and thoughtful process. So this is the opposite of responsible permitting. If our goal is to get it right, it is the opposite of what congress intended. When it wrote nepa back in 1969.
▶ 3:53:37And my colleagues amendment fixes this by replacing those arbitrary trigger points with one that does make sense. The publication of the final environmental document. Agencies would complete their analysis, incorporate the best available information, and then make a decision based on the facts and not outdated information. This is good governance.
▶ 3:53:58It avoids rushed reviews, it reduces legal risk and ensures that federal agencies work with accurate, up to date information, protects communities as well that would otherwise be put in harm's way. Because an agency was forced to ignore reality, was forced to ignore new science about flooding, wildfire, pollution or habitat collapse, and it aligns with how permitting is supposed to work in the real world.
▶ 3:54:23We should not be locking agencies into something that we know, um, is incomplete or obsolete just to meet some political talking point. We should not be telling telling them to disregard data that would keep people safe. And we certainly shouldn't be hard coding outdated information into federal decision making. This amendment restores a basic level of scientific integrity to ensure that federal agencies get it right.
▶ 3:54:52I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself, I oppose the amendment. There were several things Mr. huffman said in his, uh, testimony that I would agree with. We should not force federal agencies into accepting information that's incomplete. And the speed act does not do that. It does not force agencies to ignore any kind of new science.
▶ 3:55:20What it does, though, is it gives them discretion to consider new scientific or technical research after an application is received. If adopted, this amendment would allow special interest groups to submit manufactured science to sway agency reviews and properly. This reminds me of the. It would be like asking the tobacco industry to write a research report on the benefits of smoking cigarettes.
▶ 3:55:45Um, if somebody has a special interest, they can go out and hire somebody to write basically whatever kind of report they would like to have written. That's what we're trying to avoid here. We want to make sure that agencies do have the discretion to use any kind of new evidence that's presented, but not force them to look at everything that's submitted.
▶ 3:56:08To make matters worse, if this amendment were enacted into law, the agencies would have no choice but to consider all of it without any discretion. Uh, the speed act doesn't prohibit consideration of new science. Rather, it gives agencies discretion in considering pertinent scientific and technical information. This will make the nepa process more predictable, reduce malicious outside influence, and ensure environmental documents are digestible to the general public.
▶ 3:56:36The supreme court's ruling in the seven county case extends substantial discretion to agencies under nepa. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated in sorry, number nine. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The nos have it.
▶ 3:57:06Recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Recognize the gentlewoman from california, miss rivas, for the purpose of offering an amendment. Designated rivas number 11. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 3:57:22Uh, my amendment increases accessibility to the public comment process for all americans and counters the trump administration's insistence on pushing disenfranchized voices further into the shadows. We must ensure that all stakeholders have access to our democratic systems, not just wealthy, polluting industries.
▶ 3:57:44My amendment does three things one, it requires public comment periods, public notices, and public meetings to be accessible accessible in the predominant language of the affected community. Consider two. It considers the needs of the community like timing for working class families, and three it will ensure their accessibility needs being met, such as asl or adl services.
▶ 3:58:12These fixes allow our rural, urban, suburban and tribal communities to have a say in the decisions that are happening in their own backyards, instead of being shut out of the process. This administration caused an affordability crisis that has hit my constituents particularly hard. Many of them work two jobs to provide for their families. They can't afford to take a day off to or drive an hour in traffic to downtown los angeles to provide public comment.
▶ 3:58:42When stakeholders and federal agencies receive early and robust community feedback, especially feedback from the most impacted communities, projects will be more successful in meeting critical timelines. I encourage everyone to vote for my amendment and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:59:06I strongly support the gentlelady's amendment because it cuts to one of the fundamental, uh, problems with the bill as drafted as drafted. Mr. chairman, the bill treats public engagement and public comment and participation as a nuisance, as an obstacle in some ways, as a threat, uh, when in fact it's it's just the opposite.
▶ 3:59:29The public participation process, uh, when it's accessible, when it's working, protects the communities needs and makes for better projects. Um, nepa only works when communities actually have a real voice in decisions that affect their health, their safety, their environment.
▶ 3:59:47And that means you can't, uh, rig the public participation system in a way that prevents them from even knowing about some of these projects, let alone participating and having a chance to challenge them where appropriate. So across the us, nepa applies to communities that speak different languages, that follow different cultural practices, that have different schedules and access needs.
▶ 4:00:13There's no reason why a community should be left out of the review process, because public meetings or comment periods are scheduled at times, or in formats that are inaccessible for working families, for elders, or for people without the internet. That should be unacceptable to all of us. The purpose of nepa is to strike a balance between the people, the environment and our infrastructure.
▶ 4:00:36And if we fail to give people the access that they need to participate, we are cutting out one of the laws core pillars. This amendment from congresswoman rivas would ensure that nepa lives up to its original intent. I strongly support it and urge my colleagues to vote yes. Yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I do oppose this amendment as drafted.
▶ 4:01:03But I appreciate congresswoman rivas concern and the interest or the intent of this amendment. However, the amendment includes ambiguous language that could be used by litigants to block projects under nepa review. In developing the legislation, one of the key objectives was to instill greater certainty in the nepa process, and I'm concerned that the amendment, as drafted would instill uncertainty, which I think both sides of the aisle agree. We need more certainty.
▶ 4:01:32Uh, this bill, I think, actually enhances community engagement because it encourages lead agencies to identify tribes and local governments to be included as early as possible. Um, happy to work with the gentlelady on this language going forward. Uh, to address her stated concern without creating new opportunities for litigation. And I oppose the amendment, but I'm willing to work on it, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 4:02:01There's no further discussion. The question on the amendment offered by miss rivas designated rivas number 11. All those in favor signify by saying I those opposed. No. The opinion of the chair, the nos have it. >> I'd like to request a recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Now. The gentlewoman from california, miss rivas, for the purpose of offering an amendment designating rivas number 12.
▶ 4:02:31Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Uh, my amendment is simple. If the majority wants to include energy in the mission of the council on environmental quality, then we should also make sure that the cec includes renewable energy, too. If we want to meet the energy demands of the future, renewable energy will play a crucial role creating good paying union jobs while reducing pollution.
▶ 4:02:56The inflation reduction act invested $369 billion to expand vital clean energy tax credits. We were already seeing success. Jobs were being created, our environment was improving, and we were making real progress in tackling climate change. But what did the administration and house republicans choose to do? They chose to erase that progress side with billion dollar polluting corporations and harm the american people.
▶ 4:03:25During the republican shutdown, the trump administration canceled almost 8 billion in crucial department of energy grants. In my home state of california, 79 awards totaling $2 billion were eliminated due to simple political retribution.
▶ 4:03:42These projects would have strengthened los angeles energy grid during crises such as extreme heat waves and wildfires, made vital investments in the california hydrogen hub and help a children's hospital in the central valley lower its energy costs. My amendment ensures that the council on environmental quality incorporates renewable energy into its mission. I stand with the american people and their right to good paying jobs and a clean environment.
▶ 4:04:09We need to create an efficient energy system of the future that creates jobs, protects our health, and preserves our environment for the next generation. Thank you. And I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I oppose this amendment because renewable energy is already covered under the speed act. Whenever the bill says energy, it's referring to all types of energy.
▶ 4:04:36And adding this language in the bill would violate, uh, a guideline we put around the bill to be technology neutral and to not include biases in the bill. Uh, this is actually an amendment in search of a problem, and it's unnecessary and redundant. I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by miss rivas, designated rivas number 12.
▶ 4:05:06All those in favor signify by saying I those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> I would like to request a. >> requested for the proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentlewoman from arizona, miss grijalva, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated grijalva 14. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 4:05:31The underlying bill revises nepa to say that six duty and function includes helping advise the president on how to meet the energy requirements and goals of the nation. My amendment says that if we're going to do that, do that, then we should make clear that the mission also includes advising on how to address the climate crisis and issues of environmental justice. Addressing environmental justice is essential. Communities that have been burdened by pollution for decades deserve stronger protections, not weaker ones.
▶ 4:06:01And yet we keep seeing attacks on nepa that would leave them with fewer tools to defend their health and environment. This should be non-controversial. It's right there in the name. The council of environmental quality should be focused on environmental quality. My amendment ensures that six guidance to the president reflects the full scope of environmental challenges, not just energy considerations. I urge the I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. hoffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 4:06:31I strongly support the gentlelady's amendment, and I couldn't agree more that, uh, we are dealing with a strange inversion. When the council on environmental quality is being reimagined as a council to promote oil and gas development and sales. Um, this common sense amendment, uh, is something that everyone on this committee should support.
▶ 4:06:56It simply means that the communities who are most impacted by federal actions, uh, by projects that could increase threats of wildfires, floods, polluted air, dirty water for them and their families, that they will have an opportunity to participate in the environmental process that should be so simple. So, um, bipartisan. So, um, I'm hoping that some of our republican colleagues will join us in this, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Mr.
▶ 4:07:27Stauber, you're recognized. >> uh, mister chair, thank you very much. Uh, miss grijalva, I hate to not support your amendment at one of your first, uh, pieces of legislation, but, uh, I'm not going to support it. But I want to welcome you to the committee. And I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with your father. And I look forward to serving with you as well on this committee. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 4:07:53I recognize myself and I oppose this amendment, which would improperly insert substantive environmental justice requirements into an otherwise procedural statute. The biden administration already tried to use the council on environmental quality to enact environmental justice policy through its phase two nepa regulations. Those efforts were widely opposed by the states and were thrown out by the courts.
▶ 4:08:17The amendment adds that previously rejected language to a section of nepa that already includes robust language, requiring ceq to develop national priorities on environmental quality, adding yet more undefined terms to the statute would only invite litigation slowing and blocking projects of all kinds. I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 4:08:41If there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by miss grijalva designated grijalva 14. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed no opinion of the chair. The nos have it. >> uh, I would like to request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentlewoman from california, miss brownley, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated brownley 24, revised without objection.
▶ 4:09:10The amendment is considered. Read. Mr. brownley, you're recognized. Miss brownley your microphone. >> I'm not together this morning. Um. Or this afternoon. There you go. I guess. Yeah. Thank you.
▶ 4:09:39Alright, take it from the top. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, is written. The speed act places sweeping restrictions on communities abilities to challenge inaccurate or incomplete environmental reviews in court. Among the most concerning provisions is the limit on injunctive relief.
▶ 4:09:56Even when a court finds that an agency has failed to meet nepa's basic procedural requirements under this bill, if a project ends up in court and a judge determines that the environmental review was insufficient, the court would not be allowed to pause or stop the project. While the problematic review is addressed, the judge could only send the review back to the agency to fix.
▶ 4:10:25While the project continues to move forward. Imagine if you've gone to court over a project that is harming your community. You are part of the fraction of 1% of cases that actually make it to court. And then one of the rarer cases where a judge finds that the nepa documents to be insufficient.
▶ 4:10:48Even then, the project could continue harming your community while the federal government goes back to the drawing board. This is not meaningful accountability. My amendment simply preserves the authority that courts have exercised for decades under nepa.
▶ 4:11:07The authority to ensure compliance with agencies, compliance with when agencies cut corners or fail to conduct adequate environmental reviews at a time when checks and balances are being tested across our government, it is deeply concerning that this bill would further restrict the ability of courts to protect communities, limiting the consequences for noncompliance or limiting the relief available when communities are put at risk undermines the
▶ 4:11:39Public's right to safeguard their own health and environment by preventing courts from issuing meaningful remedies. This bill weakens one of the most fundamental rights americans have the right to access the courts and to seek redress. My amendment would simply ensure that when an agency fails to follow the law, communities are not left without recourse. I urge the support of my amendment and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr.
▶ 4:12:11Huffman? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly support the gentlelady's amendment. This is an essential fix that targets, frankly, one of the most egregious and extreme aspects of this bill. I mean, you've already dramatically constrained the public notice and participation process. You've made it hard for people to find out about projects, hard for them to participate in any meaningful way.
▶ 4:12:35You've established all of these landmines and gimmicks that keep them from challenging projects, limited standing. Um, and put all of these booby traps in place. But this in some ways is the most egregious of all. Even if they run that gantlet, they can't get a remedy at the end of the day. Um, and I know, Mr. chairman, that you have heard this from perhaps all of the democratic colleagues on our side of the aisle that have been talking to you about this bill. This is a universal concern.
▶ 4:13:04It makes a mockery of the notion that there's still any meaningful way to challenge projects under nepa. If this were to become law, this is a targeted common sense, um, restoration of an obvious remedy.
▶ 4:13:18When a project is posing imminent harm to a community, it could even be illegal, and a court is prohibited from doing anything about it that all they can do is remand it while the project moves ahead during an agency fix. It's just, um, it again, Mr. chairman makes a mockery of any notion that you can ever challenge a harmful, bad, or even illegal project.
▶ 4:13:44If this were to become law, I urge colleagues to vote yes and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back there further discussion on the amendment and stansbury, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Ranking member, I want to just take a moment of personal privilege to say, as we're here sitting, debating, permitting reform once again, it feels like the world has come full circle as we're joined today by our amazing colleague adelita
▶ 4:14:15Grijalva, who waited for weeks to be sworn in to office, and that the first hearing that we are hearing after that is to discuss something that her dad spent his entire career fighting to protect our communities and to hear a bill that undermines the fundamental protections that he fought his whole life to ensure would remain there. So I want to just be clear from the start that I support permitting reform. We need permitting reform.
▶ 4:14:44We need to build infrastructure. We need to have a modern country with modern infrastructure, and we need a government system that not only protects people in the environment, but provides efficiency and security to the businesses, the industries, the investments that make it possible for this country and our economy and our communities to run. So I support permitting reform.
▶ 4:15:08And let me tell you, there are plenty of things to fix in the law, in the bureaucracy, in the resourcing of these agencies. And as somebody who has spent my entire career working on water resources issues, I am all for it. But here are the things I am not for I am not for gutting the capacity of our communities to go to the courts to defend their rights.
▶ 4:15:33I am not for gutting fundamental protections of tribal sovereignty and tribal treaty and tribal self-determination, self-determination rights. I am not for gutting science or stopping science from informing how our federal government makes decisions.
▶ 4:15:55And I am not for putting into place arbitrary timelines and requirements in the law that nobody is asking for, other than industries that want to be able to put in infrastructure without any restrictions. And so I support wholeheartedly this amendment to ensure that our communities continue to have the right to go to the courts.
▶ 4:16:22I support the concept of making our government more efficient. I support the idea that we need to reform programs and create processes so that we don't have delays. But let's not forget why permitting and nepa exists.
▶ 4:16:37This was bipartisan legislation that was passed in this body in 1969, signed into law by richard nixon, and adopted because the american people recognized that without any kind of backstop for the american people and for our communities, for the environment, the industries would bulldoze sacred sites, that rivers would be dammed and entire ecosystems and western communities lost.
▶ 4:17:06Nepa exists to create a backstop for the american people and for the environment. And so while I support the idea of modernizing our system, I cannot support legislation that guts the fundamental tenets of what that means. And so I thank you for the opportunity today. And with that, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 4:17:35I recognize myself, I oppose this amendment. What this amendment would do is it would remove remand as the sole remedy under nepa and allow courts to enjoin or fully vacate agency actions.
▶ 4:17:49Now, I think this gets to a point that's misunderstood in the whole nepa debate and where we are today with the speed act, as stated in the supreme court's recent seven county decision, nepa is purely a procedural statute. The supreme court said that unanimously, therefore, the courts shouldn't be allowed to block projects solely because of a procedural mistake.
▶ 4:18:18And if this language were put in the bill to keep the status quo like we have today, then. Projects would be blocked just on a procedure. And there's been claims that this removes all protections for environmental damage or for bad actions, but it doesn't because.
▶ 4:18:45Agency actions can still be vacated under any number of substantive environmental laws. Environmental laws not procedural statutes like nepa, but environmental laws like the clean air act, the clean water act, the endangered species act, the list goes on and on.
▶ 4:19:04In most cases, nepa claims are already accompanied by claims under these substantive statutes, allowing vacatur of projects based on procedural missteps will tie up critical projects that our country needs to maintain its energy and national security.
▶ 4:19:22And this is, I think it's hard to to grasp where we're at right now, because it kind of sounds preposterous when you look at how the judicial review under nepa happens currently, there's right now there's a six year time frame where, uh, actions can be challenged in court and a judge can put an injunction on a project, and that project can be stopped and ended.
▶ 4:19:49And it happens all the time. It's happened to projects like, uh, the resolution copper mine in superior, arizona. The company got their permit in good faith, started spending money on the project. A lawsuit was filed, and the project has been stopped. It happened on the keystone xl pipeline.
▶ 4:20:14They got all their permits to begin constructing the project again. Spent billions of dollars and the the project was stopped. Not only was it stopped, they had to pull up pipeline that they had already put in the ground. So it was stopped and killed. So there was all of this good faith investment in projects with the thought that you can get a return on your investment.
▶ 4:20:43The rug was pulled out from under the, uh, people building the projects, and they never got any return on the investment. Now, that's happened over and over in our country. And when investors look at that, uh, I think they turn away and think we'll go invest our money in something else. Uh, that's why we have to look at what nepa is. It's a procedural statute.
▶ 4:21:09It doesn't affect the underlying environmental laws, and it still gives access to either, uh, approve or deny a project based on those environmental laws and statutes. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back. >> chairman. Oh, I was wondering if I might ask you to yield so I can ask a question. >> well, I've already yielded back. >> okay.
▶ 4:21:34Well, I was going to ask about resolution copper because it's a prime example of why you need nepa, because we're talking point of order. >> Mr. chair. >> point of order, not an environmental order necessarily. >> I was going to suggest you could get a colleague to yield you some time, Mr. soto. >> Mr. chairman, if I may yield to the gentlelady from new mexico. >> well, I'm going to yield back to you, if that's okay, because I do want to ask you a question, Mr. chairman.
▶ 4:22:02So the argument that I just heard you make is that, uh, we should waive the rights of communities to go to the courts under nepa because it's just an administrative process, and they can do it under environmental laws. And you use the example of resolution copper. Well, the lands that resolution copper wants to develop are tribal sacred site. They've been protected by treaty since the 1800s. They're a place that are amongst the holiest, not only for the apache tribes in colorado, but new mexico.
▶ 4:22:29And so the reason why litigation has ensued in that case is because the tribal sovereignty and treaty rights of the apache people have been violated. And so how how would your bill protect those rights? >> you just told me. >> I yield to you.
▶ 4:22:50>> there was a process to get a permit to build that mine, that they got the permit they started investing in the mine, spent a couple of billion dollars. Is my understanding. I've. I was there when it took an elevator down 7000ft. I know it takes a lot of money to dig a 7000 foot hole in the ground. And then after the fact, during this, uh, judicial review process, a lawsuit was filed, it was challenged in court, and that investment was was halted.
▶ 4:23:20>> I understand that. So resolution copper, which is a multinational mining company with, uh, out of country investors, including the chinese government, has invested billions of dollars in drilling and mining in a tribal sacred site. But our responsibility is the congress. >> they got a permit to do. But our through the process. >> sure, they got a permit at some point, but our responsibility as congress is to protect the american people. And we have a tribal trust and treaty responsibility. We do not have a responsibility to foreign mining companies.
▶ 4:23:49And so my question to you is, how does your bill protect the interests of tribes who, by your own argument, would not be protected? >> my argument is not that they would not be protected. My argument is that there's a process to follow, and there has to be closure on that process. And you can't expect development in our country. You can't expect america to build.
▶ 4:24:12If you go into and you talk about a mining project, uh, from point of discovery to producing products out of a mine right now is 29 years old. >> mhm. But let. >> me ask you, is way too long. So we have to provide certainty and that's what the speed act would do. >> but let me ask you the question in a slightly different way.
▶ 4:24:32Just philosophically speaking, do you think that the united states congress should pass legislation that allows a foreign mining company to mine on american public lands and take away the rights of tribes? >> I think the us congress should pass. >> a simple question. You can't answer that question. It's just a simple question. You don't think our responsibility is congress to is to protect tribes and americans from foreign companies exploiting our lands.
▶ 4:25:02>> I think that's a question that gets answered in the permitting process. We're looking at a process. >> you don't think congress has a responsibility to answer that question? >> I'm saying congress has a responsibility to pass laws that are not biased. They're not picking picking winners, winners or losers and are not balancing the scales out of favor or in favor for anyone. And that's what the speed act does. >> are you america first? >> um, I hope we're all america first.
▶ 4:25:32>> well, so then why would you? So why would you pass a law that would that would give rights to a foreign mining company before it would give rights to american tribes? >> well, are you proposing that we, uh, stop all foreign investment in america? >> I am not proposing anything at all.
▶ 4:25:50I'm asking you about your bill and its protection of americans and tribal sovereignty, and why your bill would prioritize the investment of foreign actors and mining companies over american, uh, communities who are saying they don't want this. >> I don't know what bill you're talking about, because this bill does not do that.
▶ 4:26:10This bill gives everybody access to the table to go through the permitting process for the project to be analyzed based on the merits of the project and for a record of decision to be issued timely and fairly. >> well. I appreciate the debate. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss your bill. But I think for anyone listening, you can see where the priority lays. >> is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 4:26:39There's no further discussion. The question on the amendment offered by miss brownley designated brownley number 24, revised. All those in favor signify by saying I all those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The noes have it. >> julia. Yes. >> a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed.
▶ 4:27:07I recognize the gentlewoman from california, miss brownley, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated brownley number 25. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Nepa is, at its core, a process law that ensures transparency and federal projects and permitting decisions. But this bill, with its broad definitions and diminished public engagement, would significantly weaken that transparency.
▶ 4:27:36Many provisions are drafted so broadly that they create less certainty for project applicants, not more. I'm particularly concerned about the section that allows federal agencies to substitute state or other reviews in place of nepa.
▶ 4:27:53While the majority party would argue this eliminates duplications in our permitting system without clear standards and guidelines for what constitutes an equivalent level of review, we are left with inconsistent protections that expose communities, tribes and ecosystems. And yet, this type of nepa, nepa reciprocity, can be accomplished when it's thought out and well done.
▶ 4:28:22In my home state of california, we have strong state level environmental protections through california environmental quality act, and there are programs that allow for types of nepa reciprocity and cases where states like california can prove their provisions are at least as stringent as as the federal level, and have agreed to take legal accountability for their level of environmental reviews.
▶ 4:28:50But in all the negotiations that have occurred since the act was first introduced, there still remains very little clarity on how those determinations would be made under this bill, other than at the discretion of the lead agency.
▶ 4:29:06With all the chaos the trump administration has created around nepa implementation, from executive orders that direct agencies to circumvent nepa to the rollback of ceq regulations, granting agencies even more unchecked discretion would only deepen the existing patchwork and increase legal uncertainty.
▶ 4:29:28Not only that, but this administration has made reckless and indiscriminate cuts to the federal workforce, gutting agencies of the experts we rely on to conduct thorough and timely environmental reviews. So you can see how I'm skeptical that there would even be adequate staff in place to make determinations on whether state or tribal reviews adequately meet nepa requirements.
▶ 4:29:57That is why my amendment would restore a sense of accountability to this provision. It simply ensures that any use of state or tribal environmental review to substitute for nepa remains subject to judicial review, a basic safeguard to ensure consistency, transparency and fairness. I urge adoption of this amendment to protect the integrity of our environmental review process and the communities it protects.
▶ 4:30:26I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> okay. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I support the gentlelady's amendment. And you know, this this notion of deeming a state or a tribal environmental review to be functionally compliant with nepa, it's not a crazy idea. That's something we could absolutely work with republicans on if we wanted to have an honest conversation.
▶ 4:30:53But what you can't do is to give an agency blanket discretion to make that determination, and then take away any recourse if that discretion is exercised incorrectly or in an invalid way, or even in bad faith, that makes a mockery of the process that allows them to point to any old ham sandwich and call it nepa compliance. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. So, um, I hope as we go forward, we can circle back.
▶ 4:31:23If there's ever an opportunity to have a meaningful, problem solving bipartisan conversation and put some guardrails into this, because this is potentially something that both sides should be able to work together on. With that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself and I oppose the amendment simply because it's unnecessary, as the determinations in question are already subject to judicial review.
▶ 4:31:52Uh, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by miss brownley, designated brownley number 25. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed no opinion of the chair. The nos have it. The recorded vote requested. >> julia. >> yes. >> the recorded vote has been requested.
▶ 4:32:19Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Okay. I recognize the gentlewoman from nevada, miss lee, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated lee number two. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman and ranking member huffman. Uh, Mr.
▶ 4:32:36Chairman, when you introduced the speed act, you said, quote, uh, our permitting process with common sense upgrades, we can cut red tape and enable the united states to build once again while setting the standard for environmental stewardship. I'm certainly with you on that, Mr. chairman, but let me begin my remarks, uh, with the question.
▶ 4:32:57On july 15th, president trump, uh, interior department actively chose to wrap the biggest piece of permitting red tape around the neck of renewable energy sector that we've ever seen, publishing a memo that now requires secretary burgum to personally sign off on every permit related to solar and wind energy development in this country. There's many members in here. I'm looking at.
▶ 4:33:27A few of them goes, ah, higgins, hunt myself. Amodei, who are in states that have seen, uh, this type of development literally stopped. Uh, do you happen to know how many, uh, wind and solar permits have managed to make their way out of the secretary's office in the last four months? In five days? Uh, mister, the ranking member has it right. Zero.
▶ 4:33:55Uh, it is not one. It has been a total blockade on solar and wind energy. In fact, our republican governor in nevada, joe lombardo, described what this means for our state. Uh, the memo has not only stopped solar development on federal lands in nevada, but also on private lands where federal approvals such as transmission line rights of way are required.
▶ 4:34:25There is nothing in the speed act that would cut through the biggest piece of red tape we have when it comes to permitting. And here's the deal. My amendment would restore genuine permitting parity, uh, at the doi for all forms of energy in a clear and unambiguous way. The the memo has weaponized not just the nepa process, but every permitting decision at doi. Have you read the memo? Anyone?
▶ 4:34:55The list is 70. There's 70 points where the secretary can come in and make a decision to halt development. Uh, the solar energy industries association has warned that the trump administration's on america's solar and storage industry alone are threatening over 500 projects, projects totaling 116gw of capacity.
▶ 4:35:20These projects represent, um, half of all new planned power capacity in the united states. At a time when I think we all can agree that we need more energy development in our country.
▶ 4:35:36And it's worth pointing out that, uh, these administration's attacks are harming everyone in red and blue districts alike, with at least 18 states in all corners of the country now having to confront a reality where the majority of their planned capacity is effectively on the chopping block, three out of the five states, uh, have affected have actually voted for president trump last
▶ 4:36:07Year, including texas, which alone accounts for 40% of the at risk projects. I'm sorry, Mr. hunt, but you're right, I'm right. Right. These attacks are happening at a time when electric, uh, electricity demand from ai data centers and manufacturing is skyrocketing. And here's the reality for my friends on the other side of the dais.
▶ 4:36:30Last month, politico highlighted a new analysis from lazard, the world's largest independent investment firm, which found, quote, when faced with the choice of what kind of new power sources to build, wind and solar are the clear cheapest choice when accounting for capital fuel operations and maintenance costs.
▶ 4:36:53That's true even without the federal wind and solar subsidies that republicans and trump have unwound. Uh, in the budget law that was passed. And I'll close with this. If you want the speed act to reach the senate, which I you know, everything else in the speed act I can get on board with, except with the fact that there's no parity. You need you're going to need the support of senate democrats to pass this bill.
▶ 4:37:20And on this best possible footing, then you and your republicans on this committee, I hope, will join me in supporting this amendment. In fact, the ranking member of the senate natural resources committee, martin heinrich, has called permitting parity, quote, the secret sauce, to actually getting someplace on permitting reform in this congress. I want to get it done. I think we all want to get it done.
▶ 4:37:50And I think that having some form of parity where we're not picking winners or losers, when we all know we need every form of energy possible, uh, that's what this amendment does, and I hope I get your support. Thank you. >> gentlelady's time has expired. Further discussion on the amendment. >> Mr. chair. >> Mr. stauber, you're recognized. >> uh, miss lee, I'll make it very short and sweet. I feel your pain.
▶ 4:38:17It's been done in the mining industry for years, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion, Mr. soto? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I rise in support of representative lee's amendment. We need to stop the embargo on clean energy projects. We see electricity rates are rising by 6% year over year nationally. In some places, like in florida, we see it rising 10 to 15%.
▶ 4:38:46Demand is rising because the data centers, because of ai. And we're seeing it across all these different states. But the clean energy projects that we're ready to go online, whether it's offshore wind in the northeast, whether it's wind projects in the midwest and the south, whether it's solar projects that we see on federal lands, they're being blocked and they've been blocked since the beginning of the year. If we're all in agreement that we need all the above energy solutions, then this is a part of it.
▶ 4:39:14And if these projects are about to go online, the blocking of it is a direct reason why rates are going up. If we want to have the ai revolution, we need to have nuclear. We need to have solar, natural gas and all these different energy sources. And so congress could come together in a bipartisan way to get this done and support miss lee's amendment. And I know it's affecting a lot of our districts across republican and democratic areas.
▶ 4:39:40And so I rise in support and urge you all to do so. >> to the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Recognize my self? Uh, I oppose the amendment. And I would say that the stated goal of this amendment to create a fair nepa process for all types of energy projects is something that I strongly support. And that's exactly what the speed act does.
▶ 4:40:11I know the senate's wanting some special sauce. I think the speed act is a special sauce, not just a special sauce for certainty, but we're going to send them the whole pickles, lettuce, onions, tomatoes on a sesame seed bun. They get the whole big mac with the speed act, and it's going to make our permitting process fair and equal. The whole bill is about parity, and there's nothing in the bill that picks one technology over another technology.
▶ 4:40:38There's nothing in the bill that's biased against one technology. And if we start writing language in saying this, technology can't be ignored. We're by nature making us the bill biased. And I'm support strongly keeping the the bill neutral and not putting in biased language.
▶ 4:41:02Uh the amendments current language presents several several problems, including another layer of regulatory review to energy projects. The speed act, as I said, is already technology agnostic and treats all forms of energy the same. When going through nepa.
▶ 4:41:19The speed act already includes language proposed by members on the other side of the aisle and agreed to by our side of the aisle, uh, to insert even more certainty into the bill for authorizations by adding firm deadlines, these reforms will ensure that all authorizations are processed promptly and not improperly rescinded.
▶ 4:41:37Many of the bill's supporters, such as clean american clean power, american council, and renewable energy and clean energy buyers association, recognize that the speed act clearly benefits all forms of energy. This amendment takes the bill in the wrong direction.
▶ 4:41:56I appreciate the the thought process behind the idea of parity, but I will contend that the bill already has parity, and we don't need to add language. That is, that takes the parity away. So I oppose the amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Yeah. Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> yeah. I want to thank the gentlelady for her amendment.
▶ 4:42:23And, you know, listening to this debate, it just feels like make believe. Uh, it feels this is like peter pan stuff. I mean, to pretend that there's not an active war on clean energy happening right now, and that if you just keep this technically, uh, technology neutral, that it's going to be on the level a fair playing field for both renewables and dirty fossil fuels going, it won't be. And you all know that. You all know that this bill could become law.
▶ 4:42:51And for the next three years, there's going to continue to be a fatwa on all forms of clean energy, unless you do something about it. And we have an opportunity here to actually put some teeth in your words. I mean, I just heard it again. We support all forms of energy. Well, then do something about it. This crazy war on clean energy is happening right now. It's costing jobs. It's hitting americans in their pocketbook and their utility bills. It's an insane war on the energy of the future.
▶ 4:43:19And you all want to pretend like it's not happening. I'm glad we're all here at the end of this markup to hear this little make believe exercise that we have going forward, masquerading as a permitting reform bill, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion, Mr. chair? Mr. gross, are you recognized? >> yeah. >> you know, being the originator of the bill, that was one of the things that we were trying to do is streamline the process.
▶ 4:43:48Actually, had the federal government decide where these wind tunnels, where these solar panels would be best dedicated to. But that got taken over. So, you know, I'm sitting over here and I'm listening. I haven't said very much. I don't usually say very much, but it's rich with hypocrisy. What has happened for the last four years under the biden administration was an attack on energy, on oil and gas, oil production.
▶ 4:44:13But you can make as a statistician and the ranking member, you can make it say anything you want. So, uh, the renaissance is here. I agree with you, ranking member. We need all forms of energy, all forms of energy. But, um, trust is a series of problems that's kept. I haven't seen very many promises kept by your side of the aisle. I yield back, gentleman. >> yields back. Mr. brown. Mr. chairman. >> Mr.
▶ 4:44:43Chairman, I want to yield my time to congresswoman lee. >> uh, I want to thank Mr. pete stauber. Miss Mr. gosar for their comments. Uh, my amendment actually, uh, let's say there's a new administration in in the future, this bill gets passed.
▶ 4:45:03My bill would actually protect the type of energy you're talking about because, quote, the requirement in my bill is that the quote, unquote, secretary of the interior should ensure that no category or specific type of energy project on federal land is subject to more arbitrarily restrictive or burdensome, uh, procedural requirements than any other type of energy projects. So it goes both ways.
▶ 4:45:34This is not just about solar and wind energy. It's basically about to say. It's about saying, let's treat all type of energy development equally. And I'll just point out as well, uh, Mr. chairman, um, you know, it's really when you, I understand the intent of the speed act.
▶ 4:45:57And as we've talked about, I support the intent of the speed act, but what my bill or my amendment would do is basically provide more clarity for the speed act to do what it's intended to do and not allow an administration to come in and, uh, write a memo, which, by the way, now it's on energy, you know, uh, solar and wind.
▶ 4:46:21But in another administration, it could be on oil and gas, it could be on coal. It could, you know, so this goes both ways. And when you look at this list, believe it or not, nepa is one of the determinations that is listed by the secretary of the interior.
▶ 4:46:42So we're doing all this work to provide clarity on nepa, but we're not preventing the secretary of the interior to come in with a memo that basically will put another layer of burdensome red tape on top of everything you were trying to accomplish with this bill. That's what this amendment does, plain and simple. It's not. It's saying, let's quit tipping the scales.
▶ 4:47:12And it goes both ways. Right now. It happens to be against solar and wind, but in another administration it could be on another form of energy. If we're going to do all of the tough work. And I commend you, Mr. chairman, for working across the aisle for doing the work that you've done on this bill. But if you're going to do all that work to literally have it be erased by an administration, what are we doing here? With that, I yield.
▶ 4:47:43Thank you. >> gentlelady yields back for further discussion, Mr. magaziner, you're recognized. >> thank you, chair, and thank you to miss lee for introducing this. I support this amendment. And I think part of the disconnect is this, uh, you know, I hear the chairman, other supporters of the bill saying that this is a technology neutral bill, and it is like I will posit that it is.
▶ 4:48:09But for us, we don't just want a technology neutral bill, we want a technology neutral outcome. And that's the difference right now. Listen, we talk about all of the above, and believe me, I am prepared to take the hits that I may get from some people in some groups for supporting in all of the above strategy, because I know, and I believe that in most places, in most contexts. And now at this point, clean energy is economically competitive with conventional energy.
▶ 4:48:36So I'm ready for technology neutral. But it can't just be in the bill. It's got to be the outcome. And what miss lee's amendment is trying to do, what some of my amendments have tried to do is to ensure that whatever the administration, whether it's a trump administration or a future administration, they cannot bend the scale in one direction or another when it comes to the outcomes. So that's what we're trying to do here. I think directionally, we all have similar goals, or at least many of us have similar goals.
▶ 4:49:06But we have an opportunity here to impact the outcomes in a way that is truly tech neutral, good for lowering costs, good for meeting america's energy needs, american jobs, and all the rest. And that's why I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. hunt, you recognized. >> so actually, it's not our job to predict outcomes at all.
▶ 4:49:35It's our job to create a free market. And the american public and we the people and we the people predict outcomes, not the united states congress. And so I've also seen a very interesting unlikely bedfellows that I have seen with with tech, the tech industry and the coal and oil and gas industry. And the reason why is because they absolutely need more natural gas. And that's why we're seeing these data centers in places that you would absolutely never imagine.
▶ 4:50:03I would never thought that google would be flocking to west texas like like hotcakes. Like you would not believe. Because when the sun doesn't shine, solar don't work. When the wind doesn't blow. Guess what? When those don't work. And so the idea that we're sitting on the permian basin and the marcellus shale and the eagle ford shale ad nauseam, we go on and on and on these resources that god gave us.
▶ 4:50:25It is up to us to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to produce, to produce low cost and abundant energy, not just for us, but for the entire world. You want to talk about picking winners and losers? The oil and gas industry has been kicked in the teeth for the past four years. It's all good and fun till the rabbit got the gun and now we are in charge. And now it's up to us to ensure that there is actual equality moving forward. That's all this is.
▶ 4:50:52It is eliminating bureaucratic tape so that we can all move forward. Sir, I live in houston, texas. Do you know how hot it is in houston, texas? And I can assure you that we ain't going back. And I can also assure you that this country isn't going back. And my favorite show today is land, man. Y'all should watch it if you haven't.
▶ 4:51:12It really articulates exactly how important this industry is, not just to us, but to the entire world is actually an issue of national security, not just an issue of comfort or the glasses on your face, or the plastics that we produce. As for what happened when they produced the lightning, the ford f-150 in texas is the top selling vehicle in the united states. But guess what? When the lightning came out, you would drive past all of these dealerships and they were packed with lightnings because nobody wanted them, because they weren't practical.
▶ 4:51:41It is not our job to force people to purchase a certain type of energy. It is our job to allow fairness for everyone to do it. That's all this. >> does. >> cuts through bureaucratic tape and we ain't going back. I yield back the remainder of my time. >> Mr. james baird, is there further discussion, Mr. chair? Mr. leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 4:52:03I rise in support of this amendment because that is exactly what representative lee is trying to do, is to make sure that there is fairness in the manner in which this administration and any administration.
▶ 4:52:17I really appreciated her clarification that this would require any administration to treat all energy sources equally and fairly, because she is holding the evidence, she is holding up the receipts to show that this administration is going after renewable energy, and we must do something about it.
▶ 4:52:38And with regards, since I represent the permian basin in new mexico, has indeed enjoyed the fact that there has been record oil and gas production in the permian and in my district. And yes, it has helped our state. And so to say that the last four years has not been good. Excuse me. It has been very good because it has been record oil and gas production. And guess what?
▶ 4:53:03Well, this committee was reducing the royalty on oil and gas and coal because we had to give a giveaway to them. New mexico actually increased its royalty rate to 25%. And you know what happened? Record lease sales, because you can demand more of the oil and gas industry, you can demand that they clean up and reduce the methane, and they will respond.
▶ 4:53:28But what's key is what representative lee is trying to do is to make sure that there isn't a tipping of the scale. And with that, I'd like to yield the rest of my time to Mr. magaziner. Well. >> well, thank you to to the gentleman. I'm glad that our colleague from texas has had an opportunity to try to bolster his struggling senate campaign with that speech.
▶ 4:53:49But I will point out that, uh, when he talks about the need for a level playing field, that is what we are trying to accomplish here. I heard him say that it is not congress's job to pick winners and losers. He is correct about that, I believe.
▶ 4:54:06But it is also not president trump and his administration's job to try to pick winners and losers by blocking clean energy at every turn, including wind energy, which, by the way, is abundant in the state of texas and is about to be abundant in the state of rhode island because we are leaning in to affordable, clean energy here at home. So listen, we want equality in outcomes. We want a level playing field, but we need an administration that is prepared to deliver on that. And with that I yield back.
▶ 4:54:37>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion, miss dingell? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I support, uh, the gentlelady's amendment. And I would like to say to my colleague that I was there when that f1 15 was unveiled. And we are competing in a global marketplace, and the autos are still making those evs and struggling with companies that are being helped by their foreign governments. While we are not, we just want inclusive.
▶ 4:55:03We want renewables and oil and gas, and that is what my colleague is trying to do. And I will yield the balance of my time to miss lee. >> thank you. I just I want to address Mr. hunt's comments because I feel like we're talking in a circle here. Um, if you want the market to determine the outcome, then. And you don't want government to tip the scale.
▶ 4:55:30And I understand that you feel slighted because the government in the past has skipped tipped the scale. But we're talking about the future. I mean, we can't erase the past. We're talking about the future. So we're talking about moving forward.
▶ 4:55:46And, you know, if if you're talking about market forces, then why would you not support an amendment that basically word for word says, ensures that no category or specific type of energy project is subject to more arbitrarily restrictive or burdensome procedural requirements, like, why would you not accept that
▶ 4:56:16If you're wanting to have the market forces, uh, be the determinant? I just I think we're speaking the same language. Uh, so that's why I asked for your support of the bill or the amendment. Thank you, I yield. >> Mr. dingle, to yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by miss lee. Designated lee number two.
▶ 4:56:45All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. Those opposed? No, no. The opinion of the chair. The no's have it. >> Mr. chairman. I request a vote. >> a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record.
▶ 4:57:07Uh, additional support letters and statements from over 325 organizations in support of the speed act. These groups include farmers, ranchers, energy of all types and technology developers, tribes, think tanks, and more. It includes meta, google, microsoft, and open ai.
▶ 4:57:28These are over 325, uh, substantive and unique letters that have come in from all 50 states to support, uh, the speed act. And I would also like to thank members on both sides of the aisle for, um, very passionately making the case for the speed act because it is technology neutral, it will provide certainty and it will benefit.
▶ 4:57:53And we talk a lot about energy, but these are a lot more than energy companies that I'm submitting these letters to the record for. These are infrastructure companies. Um, nepa definitely affects energy, but it affects, uh, a lot more than energy. Uh, when you look at everything that has to go through the process. So I ask unanimous consent. Without objection. So ordered. >> I have one more note. >> Mr. huffman. You're recognized.
▶ 4:58:23>> thank you, Mr. chairman. This is my last amendment, and we've talked a lot about the way this bill, as written, dramatically constrains the opportunity. >> Mr. hoffman, can you can you pause while we distribute them? >> yeah, yeah.
▶ 5:00:20>> so go. >> the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment to the westerman as to h.r. 4776 offered by representative huffman, amendment number 28. >> I recognize the gentleman from california, Mr. huffman, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number 28. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 5:00:46So a lot of this debate has been about the subject of judicial review. And from the republican side of the aisle, judicial review has been characterized as this thing where legal challenges are always frivolous, always a nuisance, always vexatious, where it's just an abuse of the system that keeps good stuff from moving forward. It's important to understand the judicial review also is sometimes absolutely essential.
▶ 5:01:17Judicial review is also what allows bad projects to be scrutinized. What sometimes saves lives, what sometimes prevents terrible destruction and harm, and saves taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. Judicial review can be a very, very good thing.
▶ 5:01:33And so if we're going to have a thoughtful conversation about permitting reform, and if we're going to make some reasonable changes to perhaps narrow the scope of judicial review, um, we're certainly talking about a bill that does that in some very extreme and dramatic ways, by limiting standing by all of these other booby traps that are put in place to make it hard for communities to know about projects, to make it hard for them to engage, to, uh, box
▶ 5:02:04Them out of public participation. But at the end of the day, um, if they can run that entire gantlet that is created by this bill, they still ought to be able to proceed with a legal challenge. And this is the last thing in which the bill does that just goes too far. They take the existing statute of limitations, which is six years, and we can have a conversation. Maybe that's too long. Maybe we need to shorten that. But you don't shorten it from six years to 150 days.
▶ 5:02:32I mean, this is just one of so many ways in which this bill is meant to shut down public participation and public comment and remedies and judicial review. So, Mr. chairman, my final amendment would look to another time when we had a conversation like this and we found a bipartisan solution, and that was around fast 41, where major infrastructure projects, instead of a six year statute of limitations, would go down to a two year statute of
▶ 5:03:03Limitation. That's a pretty dramatic, um, reduction in the review period. And it's a it's a basis on which we could proceed together with some bipartisan president it precedent. It's reasonable. It has worked in the past for one context, and I think it's the appropriate place to start on the on the statute of limitations piece of judicial review. If we're having a serious, hopefully, bipartisan conversation about broader permitting reform. So that's what my amendment does.
▶ 5:03:31It is it's not a dramatic or radical. It's based on fast 41 something with broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, um, oppose Mr. huffman's amendment, which would essentially strike the judicial review section of the speed act and replace it with this last minute amendment.
▶ 5:03:59I'll remind everyone that there's been a tremendous amount of bipartisan work that's gone into the, uh, judicial review section of the speed act, and this would certainly undermine all of that work. And I oppose the amendment, and I yield back any further discussion on the amendment. >> Mr. chair. >> pete stauber, you're recognized.
▶ 5:04:20>> I think that obviously I oppose the amendment, and it doesn't surprise me that the ranking member, uh, would bring this amendment forward, especially with his, uh, relations with the national resources defense council. And I yield back. >> Mr. chairman. What was that all about? What was that? What the heck was that? And I don't want to waste everybody's time with taking words down. But, Mr. stauber, what the hell? You can withdraw those words, or we can. We can play some parliamentary games.
▶ 5:04:50It is beneath you. It is beneath this body. >> you're out of. >> to drop a little smear like that. Or at. >> least explain. >> Mr. hoffman. >> what the hell are you talking about? >> I will not withdraw. >> committee will be in order. >> I demand his words be taken down. >> we will suspend. >> you're better than that, pete.
▶ 5:14:36>> come to order. Chair recognizes Mr. stauber. >> Mr. chair, um, after discussion with Mr. hoffman, we have agreed that I will take my words down. And he has agreed me. Agreed to allow me to read a press release. This is from this. Press release. This. This was from yesterday. Uh, from the natural resources defense council. Representatives.
▶ 5:15:00Diana degette kathy castor, jared huffman, janice schakowsky and yvette clarke have reintroduced the frac pack, a suite, a suite of bills designed to close loopholes that exempt oil and gas companies from core environmental and public health protections. The package includes the frac cleaner, refresher, shared and closed act.
▶ 5:15:24And I don't want to bore you, but you can look at the media release from the national resources defense council and to my colleagues. That's exactly what I was referencing. And I yield. >> without objection, the words were withdrawn. >> and thank you, Mr. chairman. For letting everyone know that I'm doing legislation to protect water quality from polluting discharges by fracking. I'm guilty as charged, but maybe we could be a little better in our district. >> if you're guilty as charged, why did you ask me to take my words down?
▶ 5:15:55>> the committee will come to order. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Huffman 28 amendment. There's no further discussion. The question on the amendment offered by Mr. huffman designated huffman 28. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested.
▶ 5:16:18Uh, further, uh, the procedures will be um or the further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. There are no further amendments. We will now proceed to recorded vote. The unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendments to the ans to hr 47. 76 members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 5:16:46The question is on the amendment to the ans, hr 4776 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number one, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. >> slow start for these guys. It just takes a while to.
▶ 5:17:08There we go. She she.
▶ 5:17:55>> have all members voted miss randall. >> oh I'm on I don't have my glasses on. I can't see. >> if all members voted. Does any member wish to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr.
▶ 5:18:22Chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number three, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:18:56>> all. >> have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 18 and the nays are 23. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number 13, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:19:43Have all members voted? >> Mr. russ fulcher. >> does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 16 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by ranking member.
▶ 5:20:09Huffman designated huffman number 26, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 5:20:38The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to the questions on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number 30, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:20:59Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 5:21:29The question is on the amendment to the ans, hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss leger fernandez, designated ledger fernandez number 15, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted?
▶ 5:21:58Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 16 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from new mexico, miss fernandez designated ledger fernandez number 16, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:22:41Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 designated min number 17, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:23:07Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 5:23:32The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentleman from oregon. Miss. Dexter designated dexter number 23, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:24:06Clerk will close. Have all members voted? >> Mr. wahlberg's not been recorded. Yes. >> one more. What are you guys eating down there? >> I'm sorry. >> if all members voted.
▶ 5:24:35Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 19 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 designated magaziner number seven, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:24:59Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 19 and the nays are 24.
▶ 5:25:28>> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 designated magaziner number eight, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. All members voted. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report.
▶ 5:26:00>> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 19 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 designated magaziner number nine, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:26:14All members voted. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 19 and the nays are 24.
▶ 5:26:45>> the motion or the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from washington. Miss randall designated randall number 20, on which the no's prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. All members voted. Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 5:27:11The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 19 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from washington. Miss randall designated randall number 22, on which the notes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:27:35Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 20 and the nays are 23. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from washington.
▶ 5:28:04Miss randall designated randall number 31, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr.
▶ 5:28:32Chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 26. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated ansari number nine, on which the notes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:28:50Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 18 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 5:29:19The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from california, miss rivas designated riva's number 11, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report.
▶ 5:29:49>> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 20 and the nays are 23. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from california, miss rivas designated riva's number 12, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted?
▶ 5:30:18Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 20 and the nays are 23. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans. Hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from arizona. Miss grijalva designated grijalva number 14, on which the noes revealed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. If all members voted.
▶ 5:30:54Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 26. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from california, miss brownley designated brownley number 24, revised, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:31:37Have all members voted? Mr. webster? >> Mr. >> clerk will. Does any member wish to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 18 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 5:32:01The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from california, miss brownley designated brownley number 25, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. Clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr.
▶ 5:32:30Chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 18 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 4776 offered by the gentlewoman from nevada. Miss lee designated lee number two, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report.
▶ 5:33:02>> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 19 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number 28, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 5:33:20Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 18 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 5:33:47The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, to hr 4776, offered by myself, designated westerman 42 ans. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting hr 4776, as amended to the house, with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No.
▶ 5:34:18>> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Request a recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member.
▶ 5:34:50>> Mr. chairman, has not been recorded. >> dave. >> have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 25 and the nays are 18. >> the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the house with the recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> chairman. >> Mr. huffman.
▶ 5:35:20>> thank you, Mr. chairman. I give notice of my intention to file supplemental, additional dissenting or minority views on the measure just considered. I ask unanimous consent. This notice be extended to all measures considered at the markup under house rule 11, clause two l. This notice extends to all members. >> without objection, so ordered. Committee room will be in order. We still have have business. We now turn to the uc package with the cooperation of ranking member huffman and the other members of the committee.
▶ 5:35:50It appears that we have worked out an agreement. It appears that we have worked out an agreement on seven bills scheduled for markup today, as we have done before, rather than going through a formal markup process for each of the bills, I will make a single unanimous consent motion to report out the bills favorably with any amendments that have been filed and agreed to.
▶ 5:36:17Before we begin, does any member seek time to speak on any of the bills in this unanimous consent motion? >> Mr. speaker? >> seeing none, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r.
▶ 5:36:40681 to amend the act of august 9th, 1955, commonly known as the long term leasing act, to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in trust for the mashpee wampanoag tribe and the wampanoag tribe of gay head, aquinnah, and for other purposes. And h.r. 3903 chugach alaska land exchange oil spill recovery act of 2025.
▶ 5:37:02Without objection, so ordered, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4003 86 to amend the federal lands recreation enhancement act to clarify entrance privileges for vehicles with respect to the america the beautiful interagency pass h.r. 4467, vicksburg national military park boundary modification act, and h.r. 5131, public lands military readiness act of 2025.
▶ 5:37:33Without objection, so ordered. I now ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported as described to the house of representatives h.r. 573, studying nepa's impact on projects act with amendment, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair, designated westerman one ans. H.r.
▶ 5:37:53681 to amend the act of august 9th, 1955, commonly known as the long term leasing act, to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in trust for the mashpee wampanoag tribe and the wampanoag tribe of gay head, aquinnah, and for other purposes. H.r. 3903 chugach alaska land exchange oil spill recovery act of 2025, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from alaska. Mr. begich designated begich 66 ans. H.r.
▶ 5:38:224386 to amend the federal lands recreation enhancement act to clarify entrance privileges for vehicles with respect to the america the beautiful interagency pass, with an amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, Mr. walberg designated wahlberg 27. H.r. 4467, vicksburg national military park boundary modification act, with an amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, Mr. neguse, designated neguse number one, h.r.
▶ 5:38:484503 permit act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair, designated westerman one ans h.r. 5001 31. Public lands military readiness act of 2025, when an agreement in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from alaska, Mr. begich, designated begich 74 ans. Without objection, so ordered without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
▶ 5:39:13I ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted, subject to the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.