Legislative Hearing on H.R. 573, H.R. 4503 and H.R.4776 | Full Committee Hearing

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

2025-09-10

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This meeting focused on proposed legislative reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related federal permitting processes, aiming to accelerate infrastructure, energy, and manufacturing projects across the United States. Discussions centered on three specific bills: H.R. 573, H.R. 4503, and particularly H.R. 4776, known as the SPEED Act, examining their potential to streamline reviews while considering impacts on economic development, environmental protection, and public participation.[ 00:21:44-00:21:46 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:22:47-00:22:58 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Themes

Need for NEPA Reform and its Economic Impact

Many participants emphasized that the current NEPA process introduces significant delays and cost overruns, impeding crucial economic development and international competitiveness.[ 00:21:44-00:21:46 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Speakers highlighted how permitting bottlenecks affect various sectors, including manufacturing, housing, energy, and critical minerals, and contribute to an "electricity shortfall." A McKinsey study was cited, indicating that delays create additional direct permitting costs and lead to substantial increases in construction costs and missed economic opportunities, totaling trillions of dollars over several years.[ 04:50:25-04:51:25 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 04:53:11 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Specific Legislative Proposals

The meeting addressed three key bills. H.R. 573, the "Study NEPA's Impact on Projects Act," would mandate annual reports from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) on NEPA litigation, timelines, and page lengths to pinpoint bottlenecks. H.R. 4503, the "E-Permit Act," proposes digitizing federal permitting systems, establishing a unified interagency data system, and integrating AI to enhance information exchange and transparency.[ 00:37:56-00:38:16 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 The "SPEED Act" (H.R. 4776) was extensively debated, focusing on clarifying the scope of NEPA reviews, judicial remedies, and the definition of a "major federal action" to reduce delays and litigation.

Environmental Protection vs. Development Speed

A core tension in the discussion was balancing environmental protection with the need for faster project development. Proponents of the reforms, such as The Honorable Bruce Westerman, argued that NEPA has led to "paralysis by analysis" and that streamlining it could actually improve environmental outcomes, citing delayed forest management projects that contributed to wildfires.[ 00:21:44-00:21:46 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Critics, including Robert Glicksman and Bob Dreher, countered that the SPEED Act would strip NEPA of its essential functions, potentially leading to inadequately vetted projects and increased environmental risks.[ 04:03:24-04:03:40 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Concerns were raised that the bill might allow agencies to ignore new scientific data and cumulative environmental effects, including climate change, particularly impacting vulnerable communities.

Role of Judicial Review and Litigation

The prevalence and impact of NEPA-related litigation were a significant point of contention. Supporters of the SPEED Act, including Thomas Hochman and Nick Loris, argued that litigation is excessive and often frivolous, causing undue delays, and they advocated for shorter statutes of limitations and limited judicial remedies to prevent project obstruction. Conversely, Harriet Maxine Hageman and Robert Glicksman underscored judicial review as a critical accountability mechanism for agencies, essential for ensuring compliance with statutory mandates and protecting community rights, especially for those unable to fund costly legal challenges.[ 02:34:55-02:35:31 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Bob Dreher asserted that the bill would make it virtually impossible for environmental plaintiffs to succeed in court, effectively undermining agency accountability.[ 04:03:24-04:03:40 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 04:26:09-04:26:14 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in

National Security and Global Competitiveness

Multiple speakers highlighted that permitting delays pose a direct threat to U.S. national security and global competitiveness, particularly in the context of advanced technologies like AI and critical mineral supply chains. Jeremy Harrell and Josh Levi articulated that the U.S. is in a "race" with countries like China, which are rapidly expanding their grids, manufacturing, and digital infrastructure without similar regulatory hurdles. The ability to quickly build energy and data center infrastructure was framed as essential for maintaining AI dominance and economic leadership, with current delays potentially leading to an "electricity shortfall."

Community Engagement and Public Input

The impact of reforms on public and tribal input was a significant concern. While proponents suggested reforms would lead to clearer and more predictable processes for all stakeholders, critics like Robert Glicksman and Bob Dreher argued that measures such as limited comment periods and stricter standing requirements for lawsuits would disenfranchise communities.[ 04:03:24-04:03:40 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Dominick Longobardi, representing public works, stressed the importance of early engagement with local governments and public works professionals for successful project implementation and community buy-in.

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely professional, yet it revealed deep partisan divisions regarding the specifics of the proposed NEPA reforms. While a general consensus existed on the desirability of some permitting reform to enhance efficiency, there was sharp disagreement on whether the SPEED Act achieved this without undermining essential environmental safeguards and public participation. Republican speakers generally supported the bills, emphasizing national security, economic competitiveness, and the need to cut "red tape,"[ 00:21:44-00:21:46 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 03:56:02-03:56:03 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 often expressing frustration with current delays and litigation. Democratic members expressed strong skepticism, viewing the SPEED Act as a threat to environmental protection, community voices, and clean energy development, especially in light of current administration actions they perceived as hostile to renewables. Experts like Robert Glicksman and Bob Dreher offered critical legal and environmental analyses of the SPEED Act, highlighting potential negative consequences and legal loopholes.

Participants

Transcript

T
The Honorable Bruce Westerman
you   Thank you.   Amen.   Thank you.
Thank you.   Thank you.   Thank you.
T
The Honorable Bruce Westerman
Thank you.   Thank you.
Thank you.   you   Amen.
Thank you.
T
The Honorable Bruce Westerman
Yeah.
you
T
The Honorable Bruce Westerman
Thank you.
This is the most bipartisan cooperation we've seen.
T
The Honorable Bruce Westerman
I'm not going to sit on his lap.  Thank you to the ranking member.  And we always figure out how to make it work.  We'll start again, not quite from the top, but I recognize myself for an opening statement.  As I mentioned, in my office,   I often hear a lot of people come through and say we need to do permitting reform, that permitting is holding up progress, that the results of permitting are that we're not only hurting economic development and oftentimes we're missing opportunities to actually protect and enhance the environment.  And as I said, it's a bipartisan issue.  It's not just people who vote Republican that are coming in my office to tell me that.   We had a hearing on this topic in July, and in that hearing, many of my friends across the aisle were calling fouls on the current administration, saying they shouldn't be doing this.  But you know what?  This time a year ago, on our side of the aisle, we were calling fouls on the Biden administration, saying they shouldn't be doing this.  So I think this is an opportunity for Congress to exert their Article I authority,   and to create a system that doesn't change when an administration changes, but a system that's fair, a system that allows access for all projects, and a system that's blind to the project that is being proposed.   As we've heard from a lot of witnesses, reforming NEPA will provide certainty for all projects and for all sectors of the economy.  In fact, the minority's witness at our July hearing stated, and I quote, any NEPA reform shouldn't pick winners or losers, end quote.  Fairness requires that the permitting process
T
The Honorable Bruce Westerman
proceed in a way that is blind to a project.  By ensuring this, we will allow the free market to make decisions.  I asked two engineers who testified in July if the NEPA process can be streamlined without sacrificing environmental quality.  They both said unequivocally that we can, and I fully agree.   Amending the underlying statutes to provide predictability to the regulated community and our federal agencies will strengthen the economy, improve the environment, and save agency resources.  We have three bipartisan bills before us today that would address these issues in different ways.   First off, we have H.R.  573, introduced by Representative Yakum from Indiana, which would create common sense reporting requirements for the Council of Environmental Quality, or CEQ.  As part of a thorough review of previous NEPA practices, the first Trump administration analyzed 656 Environmental Impact Statements, or EISs, published between 2013 and 2018.   The review found that on average, an EIS was 575 pages long and took 4.5 years to complete, with a quarter of them taking over six years to complete.  According to a study from the Breakthrough Institute, NEPA-related litigation on EISs takes an average of 4.2 years to resolve, and environmental non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, were involved in 75% of NEPA claims.   H.R.  573 would coalesce prior data collection and reporting efforts into a single report published annually by CEQ on NEPA litigation timelines and page length.  Reinstating these reports will help identify NEPA bottlenecks.   Next, we have H.R.  4503, the E-Permit Act, introduced by Representative Johnson of South Dakota and Peters of California.  Today's technology landscape for federal permitting consists of diverse and isolated systems spread across different federal agencies.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up