Andrew Clyde (R-GA)· Dec 18, 2025
H.Amdt. 138: Amendment sought to clarify that direct harm does not include emotional, aesthetic, or recreational harm unaccompanied by a material physical or property harm.
Failed
205220
A Republican bill with 7 Democratic cosponsors · See all 14 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 221–196
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The SPEED Act aims to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to create a more efficient and timely environmental review process. It clarifies that the Act is a procedural statute that does not mandate specific environmental outcomes. The bill introduces new rules regarding the scope of environmental reviews, limiting them to immediate and proximate effects. It also establishes specific deadlines for agency actions and sets new standards for judicial review. Additionally, the Act limits how and when federal agencies can revoke or change authorizations.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The act provides significant regulatory certainty and timely deadlines for project applicants.
- Scored +3
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill specifically addresses efficiency in farm ownership loans and operating loan guarantees.
- Scored +3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill streamlines the environmental review process by setting strict agency deadlines and providing more certainty for applicants.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill narrows the scope of environmental reviews to only proximate effects and limits judicial oversight of agency actions.
- Scored -4
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill limits judicial review for actions affecting tribal trust resources and narrows the scope of environmental considerations for those resources.
- Scored -2
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill limits the ability of the public to challenge agency actions through stricter statute of limitations and judicial review standards.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 221 yes · 196 no
12/18/2025 · Roll call 356 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 206 yes · 211 no
12/18/2025 · Roll call 355 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Efficiency and Timeliness: The bill introduces strict deadlines for agencies to notify applicants of application completeness and to issue final agency actions (Sec. 2(c)(4)).
-
Certainty for Applicants: Federal agencies are generally prohibited from rescinding or altering environmental documents once completed if there is an applicant, unless ordered by a court or agreed to in writing (Sec. 2(d)(1)).
-
Protection of Authorizations: Agencies are limited in their ability to revoke or interfere with an existing authorization unless there is a court order, a material breach, or a need to prevent immediate substantial harm (Sec. 2(d)(2)(A)).
-
Streamlined Processes for Tribes: For certain actions involving tribal trust resources initiated by a Tribe, there is a presumption that not taking action will have negative effects (Sec. 2(e)).
-
Reliance on Existing Reviews: Lead agencies may rely on previously completed environmental reviews for actions that are substantially the same, which can save time (Sec. 2(d)(1)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Scope of Environmental Review: Agencies may only consider effects that have a reasonably close causal relationship to the project, excluding those deemed speculative or separate in time or place (Sec. 2(b)(c) and Sec. 2(b)(15)).
-
Restrictions on Research: Agencies are not required to undertake new scientific or technical research if it is not essential or if it occurs after an application has been received (Sec. 2(b)(4)(3)).
-
Reduced Judicial Oversight: Courts are directed to afford substantial deference to agencies and may not substitute their own judgment regarding environmental effects (Sec. 3(a)).
-
Limited Legal Remedies: If a court finds an agency action non-compliant, the required remedy is a remand without vacatur or injunction, meaning the action remains in effect while the agency fixes the errors (Sec. 3(b)).
-
Barriers to Legal Claims: Legal claims against agency actions are barred unless they are filed within a specific 150-day window and, in some cases, require the party to have submitted a substantive and unique comment during the public comment period (Sec. 3(c)(1)).
-
Restrictions on Review for Tribal Resources: There is a prohibition on administrative or judicial review for certain agency actions affecting tribal trust resources, except under specific circumstances (Sec. 3(c)(3)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The act provides significant regulatory certainty and timely deadlines for project applicants. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill specifically addresses efficiency in farm ownership loans and operating loan guarantees. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill limits judicial review for actions affecting tribal trust resources and narrows the scope of environmental considerations for those resources.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill streamlines the environmental review process by setting strict agency deadlines and providing more certainty for applicants.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill includes specific provisions to facilitate farm ownership and operating loan guarantees through more efficient agency processes. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill narrows the scope of environmental reviews to only proximate effects and limits judicial oversight of agency actions.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill limits the ability of the public to challenge agency actions through stricter statute of limitations and judicial review standards.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Increased efficiency in agency actions could marginally improve the delivery of various government services.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — By expediting economic development and infrastructure reviews, the bill could indirectly support economic activity that helps reduce poverty.
Chip Roy (R-TX)· Dec 18, 2025
H.Amdt. 139: Amendment sought to clarify that the National Environmental Policy Act reviews only apply to environmental impacts that the lead agency or cooperating federal agencies have the legal authority to regulate.
Failed
208214
Chip Roy (R-TX)· Dec 18, 2025
H.Amdt. 140: Amendment sought to define further what significant effects will trigger an Environmental Impact Statement.
Failed
204217
Rules Committee · Dec 18, 2025
H.Amdt. 143: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
With no one objecting, no names recorded
- 12/18/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 196 (Roll no. 356).
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 196 (Roll no. 356). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H6037-6040)
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 206 - 211 (Roll no. 355).
- The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- Ms. Lee (NV) moved to recommit to the Committee on Natural Resources. (text: CR H6068)
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 4776.
- The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6065-6069)
- Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 4776 as unfinished business.
- On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
- Mr. Westerman moved that the committee rise.
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Roy amendment No. 6, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Huffman demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 951, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Roy amendment No. 6.
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Roy amendment No. 5, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Huffman demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 951, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Roy amendment No. 5.
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Clyde amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Huffman demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 951, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Clyde amendment No. 1.
- GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole resumed general debate on H.R. 4776.
- GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 4776.
- The Speaker designated the Honorable Carol D. Miller to act as Chairwoman of the Committee.
- House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 951 and Rule XVIII.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, H.R. 1366, H.R. 845, H.R. 3616, H.R. 3632 and H.R. 4371. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, under a structured rule and H.R. 1366, H.R. 845, H.R. 3616, H.R. 3632, and H.R. 4371 under a closed rule. The resolution provides one motion to recommit on each bill.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 951. (consideration: CR H6029-6044)
- 12/16/2025
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 951 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, H.R. 1366, H.R. 845, H.R. 3616, H.R. 3632 and H.R. 4371. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4776, under a structured rule and H.R. 1366, H.R. 845, H.R. 3616, H.R. 3632, and H.R. 4371 under a closed rule. The resolution provides one motion to recommit on each bill.
- 12/15/2025
- Supplemental report filed by the Committee on Natural Resources, H. Rept. 119-395, Part II.
- 12/4/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-395.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 344.
- 11/20/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 25 - 18.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- 9/26/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/17/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/10/2025
- Committee Hearings Held
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/9/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/8/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/25/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-HRES-951: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4776) to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to clarify ambiguous provisions and facilitate a more efficient, effective, and timely environmental review process; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1366) to provide for the location of multiple hardrock mining mill sites, to establish the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 845) to require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3616) to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review regulations that may affect the reliable operation of the bulk-power system; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3632) to amend the Federal Power Act to adjust the requirements for orders, rules, and regulations relating to furnishing adequate service, to require owners or operators of generating facilities to provide notice of planned retirements of certain electric generating units, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4371) to amend the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to enhance efforts to combat the trafficking of children.
- 119-HRES-953: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6703) to ensure access to affordable health insurance; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 498) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit Federal Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for minors; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3492) to amend section 116 of title 18, United States Code, with respect to genital and bodily mutilation and chemical castration of minors; and relating to consideration of the bill (H.R. 4776) to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to clarify ambiguous provisions and facilitate a more efficient, effective, and timely environmental review process.
Michael BaumgartnerRepublican · Washington
Nicholas BegichRepublican · Alaska
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Henry CuellarDemocrat · Texas
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
Gabe EvansRepublican · Colorado
Vicente GonzalezDemocrat · Texas
Jared GoldenDemocrat · Maine
Marie PerezDemocrat · Washington
Adam GrayDemocrat · California
Harriet HagemanRepublican · Wyoming
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
Mariannette Miller-MeeksRepublican · Iowa
Pete StauberRepublican · Minnesota