PERMIT Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/3898
Last Updated: December 13, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10]

ID: C001129

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

December 11, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

âś…

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this monstrosity and expose its true intentions.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The PERMIT Act (HR 3898) claims to "make targeted reforms" to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, aiming to improve water quality standards, certifications, and permitting processes. Sounds noble, but don't be fooled – this bill is a Trojan horse for special interests.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Water Quality Standards Attainability**: The bill amends Section 303(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to include reviews of water quality standards' cost-effectiveness and commercial availability of treatment technologies. A clever way to introduce "cost-benefit analysis" into the equation, which will inevitably lead to watering down (pun intended) environmental regulations. 2. **Water Quality Criteria Development and Transparency**: The bill adds new paragraphs to Section 304(a), requiring the Administrator to consider treatment technologies' cost and commercial availability when developing or revising water quality criteria. More "cost-benefit analysis" nonsense, designed to favor polluters over people. 3. **Improving Water Quality Certifications and American Energy Infrastructure**: This provision amends Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making it easier for energy infrastructure projects (read: pipelines) to obtain certifications. A clear giveaway to the fossil fuel industry.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Environmental groups: Will be forced to fight an uphill battle against weakened regulations and increased pollution. * Energy companies: Will rejoice at the eased permitting processes and reduced regulatory burdens. * State governments: May see some benefits from streamlined permitting, but will ultimately be beholden to federal agencies and corporate interests.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

This bill is a classic case of "regulatory capture," where special interest groups (in this case, energy companies) have successfully lobbied for legislation that serves their interests at the expense of public health and environmental protection. The PERMIT Act will:

* Weaken water quality standards and certifications * Increase pollution from energy infrastructure projects * Favor corporate profits over public health and environmental concerns * Further erode trust in government's ability to regulate effectively

The sponsors and cosponsors of this bill should be ashamed of themselves. They're either incompetent or corrupt – take your pick.

**Diagnosis:** This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Regulatory Capture-itis," with symptoms including:

* Excessive influence from special interest groups * Weakened regulations and standards * Increased pollution and environmental degradation * Decreased public trust in government

Treatment: A healthy dose of transparency, accountability, and genuine concern for the public good. Unfortunately, this bill is beyond salvation.

**Prescription:** Vote against HR 3898 and demand better from your elected representatives.

Related Topics

Government Operations & Accountability Small Business & Entrepreneurship Congressional Rules & Procedures National Security & Intelligence Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Transportation & Infrastructure Civil Rights & Liberties Federal Budget & Appropriations State & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$95,490
23 donors
PACs
$1,000
Organizations
$6,600
Committees
$0
Individuals
$87,890
1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600

No committee contributions found

1
SILBEY, ALEXANDER
1 transaction
$6,600
2
ARNOLD, LAURA
1 transaction
$6,600
3
READ, KURT
2 transactions
$6,600
4
COATES, CHRIS
2 transactions
$6,600
5
CROTTY, THOMAS
2 transactions
$6,600
6
YOUNGMAN, ANDREW
2 transactions
$6,600
7
BUFFALOE, STEPHANIE
2 transactions
$6,600
8
EGGE, LESLIE
2 transactions
$6,600
9
CASSITY, BRENDON
1 transaction
$3,300
10
TURKISH, JASON
1 transaction
$3,300
11
GIORDANO JR, THOMAS J
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BEST, THILO
1 transaction
$3,300
13
ARNOLD, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
14
CHISHOLM, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
15
PRESTON-WERNER, THERESA
1 transaction
$3,300
16
KAUFMAN, JOSHUA
1 transaction
$3,000
17
ALVARADO, ESMERALDA
1 transaction
$1,798
18
DILLON, CONNOR
1 transaction
$1,798
19
EURIN, BRAD G
1 transaction
$1,798
20
JONES, LESLIE
1 transaction
$1,798
21
MARSHALL, BRENDA
1 transaction
$1,798

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 8 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

ID: G000546

Top Contributors

10

1
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
Organization DURANT, OK
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
2
VOLUME TRANSPORTATION
Organization CONYERS, GA
$2,000
Aug 28, 2023
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization CABAZON, CA
$1,500
Jul 19, 2023
4
NORTHWEST MISSOURI CELLULAR
Organization MARYVILLE, MO
$1,000
May 15, 2024
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization CABAZON, CA
$1,000
Jan 30, 2024
6
MIDWEST DATA CENTER
Organization ROCK PORT, MO
$500
Jul 25, 2023
7
MIDWEST DATA CENTER
Organization ROCK PORT, MO
$500
May 15, 2024
8
DEMOCRACY ENGINE LLC
Organization WASHINGTON, DC
$469
Apr 28, 2024
9
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization BANNING, CA
$3,300
Jun 10, 2024
10
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY OPERATIONS ACCOUNT
Organization MARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Apr 6, 2023

Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

ID: L000578

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
Organization TAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
Organization PALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
3
LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE
Organization CASS LAKE, MN
$2,000
Nov 4, 2024
4
VANN BROTHERS
UNINCORPORATED • PARTNERSHIP
Organization WILLIAMS, CA
$1,500
Jun 27, 2023
5
ONEIDA NATION
Organization ONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Oct 31, 2024
6
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA, .
SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE
Individual LEMORE, CA
$6,600
May 6, 2024
7
NECHAY, JULIA
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
Individual ROSEVILLE, CA
$5,000
Oct 26, 2024
8
OSAGE NATION, .
SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE
Individual PAWHUSKA, OK
$3,300
Oct 8, 2024
9
MCLAUGHLIN, RANDY
OLD DURHAM WOOD • ORCHARD TEMOVAL
Individual DURHAM, CA
$3,300
Oct 13, 2024
10
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, .
SOVEREIGN NATION • INDIAN TRIBE
Individual DURANT, OK
$3,300
Oct 16, 2024

Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7]

ID: R000603

Top Contributors

10

1
WRIGHT, DEREK
MERIDIEN MARKETING AND LOGISTICS, INC • EXPORT
Individual WILMINGTON, NC
$3,435
Mar 27, 2024
2
CREASY, DONALD J
CARUTHERS PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE
Individual CLAYTON, NC
$3,435
Jun 11, 2024
3
ESTEP, HANK
GRIFFIN ESTEP • INSURANCE
Individual WILMINGTON, NC
$3,435
May 16, 2024
4
POWERS, DAVID M.
SELF EMPLOYED • PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Individual RALEIGH, NC
$3,435
Sep 6, 2024
5
BERGMAN, LEAH MARIE
SOUTHERN REPAIR SERVICE INC • REAL ESTATE
Individual CHAPEL HILL, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
6
CONNORS, CATHERINE F
SOLSTICE PARTNERS LLC • REAL ESTATE
Individual CARY, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
7
DEGIACINTO, CLAY
AXONIC CAPITAL • MANAGING PARTNER
Individual RALEIGH, NC
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
8
ELLIS, GARY
SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
Individual MATTHEWS, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
9
MILLS, FRED G JR.
MILLS CONSTRUCTION • GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Individual WAKE FOREST, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
10
ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE
WINROCK GROUP INC • PRESIDENT
Individual LITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

ID: H001100

Top Contributors

10

1
OTERO COUNTY REPUBLICAN WOMEN
Organization LA JUNTA, CO
$2,000
Nov 22, 2024
2
GARY DOEHLING PC
Organization GRAND JUNCTION, CO
$2,000
Jan 22, 2024
3
MESA COUNTY REPUBLICAN MEN'S CLUB
Organization GRAND JUNCTION, CO
$500
Nov 22, 2024
4
DEARMAN CONSULTING LLC
Organization MEEKER, CO
$500
Feb 12, 2024
5
L BAR SLASH RANCH
Organization MEEKER, CO
$500
Feb 12, 2024
6
MONTEZUMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Organization CORTEZ, CO
$200
Oct 30, 2024
7
BENSON, BRUCE
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual DENVER, CO
$5,000
Nov 1, 2024
8
ABBOTT, DEBRA
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual MONTROSE, CO
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
9
ABBOTT, SARAH
IRELAND STAPLETON PRYOR AND PASCOE PC • LAWYER
Individual MONTROSE, CO
$3,300
Sep 3, 2024
10
ABBOTT, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual MONTROSE, CO
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]

ID: O000086

Top Contributors

10

1
UTE INDIAN TRIBE
Organization FORT DUCHESNE, UT
$3,300
Nov 12, 2024
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization BANNING, CA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2024
3
PALMER, JEFFERY
NONE • RETIRED
Individual MAPLETON, UT
$13,200
May 29, 2023
4
JENKINS, JAMES W.
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual SALT LAKE CITY, UT
$10,000
May 13, 2024
5
HOLSCHER, KELLY
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual PACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$6,600
Aug 22, 2024
6
LISONBEE, DAVID
4LIFE RESEARCH • BUSINESS OWNER
Individual PROVO, UT
$6,600
Mar 19, 2024
7
OVERHOLT, DAVID W. MR.
UNIFIED PURCHASING GROUP • PRESIDENT
Individual SOUTH JORDAN, UT
$6,600
Apr 3, 2024
8
DAICHENDT, JOE
ACI JET • BUSINESS OWNER
Individual LADERA RANCH, CA
$6,600
Mar 16, 2023
9
GRIFFIN, KENNETH
CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO
Individual MIAMI BEACH, FL
$6,600
Apr 10, 2023
10
PALMER, KELLY
NONE • RETIRED
Individual MAPLETON, UT
$6,600
Jun 13, 2023

Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]

ID: S001212

Top Contributors

10

1
DEMOCRACY ENGINE INC
PAC WASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jun 6, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUITY
Organization PRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
3
LEECH LAKE - PAC
Organization CASS LAKE, MN
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUITY
Organization PRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 13, 2023
5
GOOGLE
Organization MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA
$1,000
Feb 21, 2023
6
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK
Organization MCLEAN, VA
$25
Dec 6, 2023
7
ZOTTO, CARLA DEL
Individual GLADEWATER, TX
$10,000
Aug 27, 2024
8
ANDERSON, ROLLIS
ANDERSON TRUCKING SERVICE INC. • CEO
Individual SAINT CLOUD, MN
$9,900
Feb 8, 2024
9
FAISON, JAY
CLEARPATH • FOUNDER
Individual CHARLOTTE, NC
$6,600
Jun 30, 2024
10
NYSTROM, BRIAN AND MARY ANN
NYSTROM & ASSOCIATES • PRESIDENT & CEO
Individual ANDOVER, MN
$6,600
Sep 27, 2024

Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]

ID: C001087

Top Contributors

10

1
KAMPETER, MICHAEL MR.
SNK REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC • PARTNER
Individual META, MO
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
2
KAMPETER, MICHAEL MR.
SNK REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC • PARTNER
Individual META, MO
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
3
SILBEY, ALEXANDER MR.
ATS COMMUNICATIONS • CONSULTANT
Individual WASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jan 24, 2023
4
WALTON, ROB MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual BENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023
5
HEDGE, BETTY MRS.
HEDGES INC. • OWNER
Individual PARAGOULD, AR
$3,300
Jun 4, 2024
6
HEDGE, RANDY MR.
HEDGES INC • OWNER
Individual PARAGOULD, AR
$3,300
Jun 4, 2024
7
DILLARD, DENNIS ALEXANDER MR.
DILLARD'S INC • PRESIDENT
Individual LITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Sep 17, 2024
8
LAMBERT, RYAN MR.
SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR
Individual MCLEAN, VA
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
9
COOPER, JOHN A. MR. III
COOPER COMMUNITIES INC. • PRESIDENT
Individual ROGERS, AR
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
10
STEPHENS, WARREN A. MR.
STEPHENS INC • PRESIDENT & CEO
Individual LITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Jul 31, 2023

Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2]

ID: T000490

Top Contributors

10

1
PREWETT SERVICES LLC
Organization SOUTHAVEN, MS
$5,000
Jun 14, 2023
2
PREWETT SERVICES LLC
Organization SOUTHAVEN, MS
$1,700
Jun 14, 2023
3
THE WETZEL FAMILY TRUST
Organization LAS VEGAS, NV
$250
Jun 28, 2024
4
POLITICAL EDUCATION PATTERNS LOCAL 18 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
Organization CLEVELAND, OH
$5,000
Aug 9, 2024
5
ELITE MOVING & TRANSPORT LLC
Organization BATAVIA, OH
$700
Mar 1, 2024
6
LUKE, DON MR
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual PHOENIX, AZ
$11,600
Mar 13, 2023
7
RADGOWSKI, STEVEN
Individual NORTHPORT, NY
$7,300
Dec 31, 2023
8
HAHN, SAMUEL
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, IL
$6,600
Aug 30, 2024
9
ELLIOTT, BEVERLY B MS
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual MOUNT JULIET, TN
$6,600
Mar 16, 2023
10
MCMANUS, DEBORAH
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual LIVERMORE, CA
$6,600
Mar 18, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 43 nodes and 45 connections

Total contributions: $144,195

Top Donors - Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10]

Showing top 23 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC1 Org21 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Moderate 63.3%
Pages: 461-463

— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies

Introduction

Low 52.3%
Pages: 572-574

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Introduction

Low 50.7%
Pages: 458-460

— 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms. — 427 — Environmental Protection Agency l Defend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used to second-guess previous state decisions. l Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensure that Title V is used only as intended by Congress. CAA Section 11123 l Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from an already regulated source category without making predicate findings for that new pollutant. l Institute automatic withdrawal of any proposed rule that is not finalized within the statutorily prescribed one-year period. l Revise general implementing regulations for existing source regulatory authority under CAA § 111(d)24 to ensure that EPA gives full meaning to Congress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that the state planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states. CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)25 l Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an already regulated hazardous air pollutant do not require a Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard. l Ensure that Section 112 regulations are harmonized with Section 111 regulations that apply to the same sector/sources. l Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits. Radiation l Assess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align with those of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well as international standards. l Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk and reassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.